Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with. Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3 and see

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar discussion with IBM? Well, see

Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

I am starting to notice a growing number of people who claim that what makes software Open Source is what *copyright* license agreement it is licensed under. This is not in fact the case: a program qualifies as Open Source if the distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar discussion with IBM? Well, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php and,