Dear all of yours,
I've inform all of yours before that I found my mistakes in CUA Office
Public License so; this is a no mistakes version and it's for OSI approval
too (I don't want to use the mistakes one, it's make me and you confuse.)
Regards,
Patranun Limudomporn
Project Leader
CUA Office
Ian Jackson scripsit:
Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it?
Yes, it's impossible.
This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable'
only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's
authors, who consider this
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit:
PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL,
just have a look at
http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm
Thank you for providing this diff.
What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed
John Cowan wrote:
Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of
their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers.
Does that mean others are forbidden from *giving* them software,
or they violate their parole if they _receive_ software? In other
words,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL):
Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use
it?
Yes, it's impossible.
This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable'
only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I
Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file
for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R
released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible.
But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed
to
John Cowan said on Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:01AM -0500,:
Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition
of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers.
Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if
they do happen to have GNU
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the
rule is
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit:
That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot,
and does not seek to override the law.
But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one
can, at least within a single country.
You need to clarify what you mean by
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software
because of patent
Hi Everyone
With regard to the MPL there is one new element that probably isn't
well known.nbsp; There is a section of the MPL that says who can modify the
MPL.nbsp; The 1.0 and 1.1 versions specify that entity as netscape (it had
to be someone).nbsp; But with the creation of the Mozilla
Why, then, is the MIT license compatible with the GPL?
Because the MIT license is silent about patents; in and of itself,
it can't do anything to require you to breach the GPL's licensing
terms. (It may be that the word use provides an implied patent
license.) A specific MIT-licensed program may
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost
without
restriction:
That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not
move along with the work. The patent may be owned by a completely
separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time
of
Bjorn Reese wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
The probationer is not prevented from distributing the
On 02/17/04:07/2, Russell Nelson wrote:
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we
should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word
utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same
thing and avoids a phony formality.
Title: Fair
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:10, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost
without
restriction:
That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not
move along with the work.
I may not be following your meaning here. Assuming
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:30, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is covered by non-free
patents. The Apache License says that any patent licenses granted to
you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache go away if you claim
there exists a non-free patent
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
I also claim that since the Apache license can retract
Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims,
that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd
code.
Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code,
I think you're using the term non-free to mean two different things
in
two different sentences.
Nope.
Let me reword: :-)
| The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is
| covered by patents not distributable under GPL terms. The Apache
| License says that any patent
| licenses granted to
Just to precede my statements with a warning that they are as it seems to
me. I am not a lawyer, so my opinions could use any [dis|]qualifications.
On 02/17/04:07/2, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed
source code to inform his
20 matches
Mail list logo
