Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:51:42PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
I think that, as a rule, the -legal mavens don't unilaterally approach
the authors of works or licenses.
The affected
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 12:58:56AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:36:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
For these reasons, I believe we should ask for license texts, and other
relevant, small documents, to be posted inline instead of being linked.
I'll add
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030902 22:45]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible for propietary
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost
*all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
I think this is the link: Some people (software companies) prefer not to
license their code under the GPL, therefore they reject using GPL'd code.
Other people prefer to not wear clothes, therefore they reject free
t-shirts.
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-03 09:50]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
I think this is the link: Some people (software companies) prefer not to
license their code under the GPL, therefore they reject using GPL'd code.
Other people prefer to not wear clothes, therefore they
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030903 10:57]:
Sorry, but that didn't make any sense at all. There's no relationship
between a license forbidding use of code in the endeavor of writing
proprietary software, and a person choosing not to accept something
because of personal preference.
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030903 11:36]:
No. Proprietary software authors don't not use GPL code because they
prefer not to. They don't use it because the GPL prohibits them from
doing so.
Except when proprietary code from other parties is involved (which
is just a special form of
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 15:32]:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
DFSG#5 and #6 are rarely used. Most of the time, you really want to be
looking at #1, including for non-commercial use only licenses.
Well, I don't know which part of the MIT/X11 license you are aiming it,
but if you say it
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:49 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
When referring to a license, it's useful to provide a URL to the text
of
the license in question.
I respectfully disagree. It's useful to provide the full text of the
license in question, not just a URL.
Rationale:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:06:12PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
We just can't read DFSG#6 that broadly.
So you want to say one should limit its reading to
something unreasonable small, because one could also
read it unreadonable broad?
You just said, yourself, that you can't read
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:36:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
For these reasons, I believe we should ask for license texts, and other
relevant, small documents, to be posted inline instead of being linked.
I'll add one: it's just much easier to discuss a license when it's
there to be
Hi!
Someone raised an idea on IRC that I might see as valid:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL licensed
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL licensed
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 11:49]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
Thats one of the reason why we put software that is
* Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 15:32]:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
Thats one of
26 matches
Mail list logo
