To whom it may concern,
It's my mistake because I didn't change something for CUA Office Public
License. Just have a look.
This is old (and also wrong too.) paragraph.
EXHIBIT A - CUA Office Public License.
``The contents of this file are subject to the CUA Office Public License
Version 1.1 (the
Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,:
snip
The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain.
Creative Commons public domain dedication follows
If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid
under any theory of law, current or
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
Hey,
Could someone tell me how to get off this list?
Thanks,
--
Daniel Carrera | No trees were harmed in the generation of this e-mail.
PhD student. | A significant number of electrons were, however, severely
Math Dept. UMD | inconvenienced.
--
license-discuss archive is at
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that
seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL,
but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have
been revoked.
That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit:
I'd like to inform all of you that our project has been place a CUA Office
Public License (CPL) on our project website now at
http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/CPL.htm .
This looks like the Mozilla Public License. Can you specify the
differences between your
I think the NASA Open Source Agreement is worthy of OSI's approval - - with
revision, but it also raises issues worthy of discussion and, perhaps,
adjustment to the OSD since the internationalization of intellectual
property law will likely raise similar open source licensing issues for
other
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Regarding the issue concerning whether NASA may license software it cannot
copyright in the U.S., the answer is yes, notwithstanding that significant
harm to the conception of public domain for digital works is likely to
follow.
And if
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,:
snip
The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain.
Creative Commons public domain dedication follows
If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid
A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7
of the GPLv2:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies
directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As can be seen form the comments, the problem is clause 3:
3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within
this software (TESTNAME, TESTNAME) must either strictly
adhere to the execution rules for such tests
My license does not appear on your list:
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob
License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure
that the license
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Or is the legal world so badly broken that it is practically
impossible to reliably place software in public domain?
Pretty much. Dedications to the public domain have been rare to
nonexistent in the past, and nobody is quite sure whether they can
actually be achieved
Yes, its distribution is still impossible. The GPL preserves its
generality through the generality of the provenance of copyright.
Various licenses may assert all manner of things, but the principled
position of the GPL inherently applies in this case.
(Or so I would say by way of taking a
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
P.S. If a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software and license it
to Australians, can a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software
and release it in Australian public domain?
I missed this before. No. The software is not PD in Australia and only
NASA could
Hello,
I note that the Free Software Foundation have updated their licence list
at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html as follows:
The Apache Software License, version 2.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Apache Software License is
http://google.com/search?q=The+GPL+is+not+Compatible+with+itself;
regards,
alexander.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Assuming I did not, let me replace derived products with derived
works since product is difficult to define. I will also explicitly
include published test results in the derived works. A published
test result is a derived work, right?
No, at least generally not. When
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Assuming I did not, let me replace derived products with derived
works since product is difficult to define. I will also explicitly
include published test results in the derived works. A published
test result is a
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the
GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute
it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A.
Sure he can
On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 03:22 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
No, the patent (if there was one) would be an additional restriction
on the GPL. The Apache License itself is not the patent and does not
restrict the GPL any more than the GPL
Roy T. Fielding scripsit:
Code incorporating patents, when the code and contributors' patents are
licensed solely under the MIT license, cannot be incorporated into a
derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because any recipient who
receives a copy of such a derivative work has no rights to
Patranun Limudomporn writes:
and thank you for OSI approval too.
Your license has been sent to the board for consideration.
No action has yet been taken to approve your license, nor any other
license submitted since middle August of 2003.
--
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com |
Zooko O'Whielacronx writes:
So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the
(ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In
addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also
prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar
Carmen Leeming writes:
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob
License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure
that the license had
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 20:01, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Allow me to make a less convoluted translation:
Code incorporating patents, when the code and contributors' patents are
licensed solely under the MIT license, cannot be incorporated into a
derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because
26 matches
Mail list logo
