See below. I should have made some extra things clear.
David Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:42 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
You have the right to do *anything* with a copyrighted work only if you
have agreed and complied with (and read) the license.
Added emphasis I didn't mean
(For a few days, I had some hardware problem and could not access the
net. Hence, I could not reply earlier. The original came to me off
the list, but since the list appears to be very much interested, I am
posting the reply to the list also.)
Sujita Purushothaman wrote:
You are way off
Brendan Hide scripsit:
The first two books I pick up from the shelves:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, reads:
(c) Oxford University Press 1999
Database right Oxford University Press (makers)
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
Does the new frontmatter at
URL:http://www.sleepycat.com/licensing.html where they define
redistribute to include use in multiple different physical
locations, even within the same organization affect their license's
Open Source Definition compliance?
The result is certainly something that
Bennett Todd scripsit:
The result is certainly something that doesn't have the flavour of
Open Source any more --- a company using it can now be forced to pay
SleepyCat, or stop using it, if they're using it at more than one
place.
Not so. The company can, however, be compelled to disgorge
As of Nov 1, 2002, the Plan 9 license at URL
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html
is labelled Version 1.4 - 09/10/02 and titled
PLAN 9 OPEN SOURCE LICENSE AGREEMENT
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would
At the suggestion of readers of license-discuss, I have made two more
changes to draft version of the OSL.
1. In the definition of Source Code, I have clarified that documentation
to modify the Original Work -- but not documentation to access it --
is what must be provided.
2. In the
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Bennett Todd wrote:
Does the new frontmatter at
URL:http://www.sleepycat.com/licensing.html where they define
redistribute to include use in multiple different physical
locations, even within the same organization affect their license's
Open Source Definition compliance?
Ralph Mellor scripsit:
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open
Source.
Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open
Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at
John Cowan r sez:
Ralph Mellor scripsit:
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open
Source.
Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open
Sourceness in its current incarnation? The
Lewis Collard scripsit:
The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1
does not have this problem).
and doesn't permit
commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute
it for profit by claiming the
Lewis Collard scripsit:
Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
(No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.)
I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving
OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD.
Anyway, this discussion
David Johnson wrote:
A) A requirement for user consent, in my opinion, is immoral,
unethical, and just plain rude.
Yes. I agree there.
I don't need to agree to a license in order to read a book. I don't
need to agree to a license in order to listen to music. I should
not have to agree to
On Friday 01 November 2002 12:32 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
Cryptography in C and C++ reads:
Copyright (c)2001 by Michael Welschenbach
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying,
On Friday 01 November 2002 07:29 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
I don't need to agree to a license in order to read a book. I don't
need to agree to a license in order to listen to music. I should
not have to agree to anything in order to use a copy of software
which I own.
But then, music
15 matches
Mail list logo
