Hi all,
We have a product that is currently submitted using the LGPL license.
Our product is a virtual machine + a class library. Our users create
products using the class library and deploy their products with the class
library and the virtual machine.
We now want to change the license from
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one
that states:
1. our software is and will ever be open-source
2. their software can have any license they want
3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else)
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most you can do is to make further releases of your software
proprietary, which does expose you to the risk that a competitor
will arise who will make further improvements to the old releases
and distribute them under the old license or some
Hi Alex and John,
Thank you for the feedback.
The principle that open-source software can be freely distributed and
redistributed is the
very first point of the Open Source Definition.
Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change
the source, but not related to
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is
most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to
release the sources of your software (and allow modification?),
Release in the sense that they will provide those sources to
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change
the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses
state that the distribution is completely free?
No. All OSI approved licenses state that if you
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is
most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to
release the sources of your software (and allow modification?),
Release in the
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source
specification is so rigid.
I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much
sense.
We have so many
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the
open-source specification is so rigid.
I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much
sense.
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I
strongly suggest that you not use that term.
... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific
terminology.
I personally think it is to everyone's advantage if the term
On May 6, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source
specification is so rigid.
I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much
sense.
The
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the
BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of
Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing.
A tricky example, actually, since the Sleepycat license is reciprocal:
you have to
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I personally think it is to nobody's advantage to permit this term
to be twisted to the point where it can be used to describe software
which may not be redistributed freely.
It is not clear to me whether the term is twisted by adding
restrictions
Hi,
Can someone tell me why this product is OSI certified? (see logo at the
site)
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
Their license is clearly distribution-limited:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
thanks
guich
ps: it would be nice if the mail-list
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is
going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a
problem?
Sure it is. Software writers spend more time selecting among mostly
identical licenses and software users spend more
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle:
lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because
how could they justify their fees then?
I am sure that's a part of the problem. However, I am curious how many
Actually, I think there are other reasons beyond the lawyer, and
understanding them would be helpful to any hope of progress.
Many people have an idea of how they want to run their business or project
and want a license that is geared to their plans. Lacking a good
understanding of how hard a
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to
build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going
to see yet another fragmentation here?
What makes you think there isn't already active cooperation? I know from
personal experience
On May 6, 2004, at 3:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the
BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of
Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing.
A tricky example, actually, since the
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to
build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going
to see yet another fragmentation here?
What makes you think there isn't already active
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Alex.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Read it. Isnt it distribution-limited?
regards
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Hi,
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
thx
guich
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
Enterprise Source License and OEM Source License.
I am guessing these are Gluecode-invented names. I have
Hi,
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
ESL: Enterprise Source License
OSL: OEM Source License
None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
License is certainly not open-source since it does not allow to
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess. I do not see a direct answer to your question
Hi Alex
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess.
That makes sense. But what we think when we see the logo in the site is that
Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
ESL: Enterprise Source License
OSL: OEM Source License
None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
License is certainly not open-source since it does not
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Simple. Their license is *not* OSI certified and they are misusing the logo
under false pretenses. (Their
Hi OSI folks,
Just to abuse a little from your patience.
Since i already misunderstood the concept of open-source (which does not
only means source-code-available, but also requires-free-distribution), are
there any other concepts behind free software, except that they are free
of charge?
2nd
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
Enterprise Source License and OEM Source License.
I am guessing these are Gluecode-invented names. I have no idea what
licenses are behind those names. For all we know, OEM Source License
may be a BSD license!
If those licenses are not approved by OSI,
First of all, please note that this mail expresses only my personal
view. I am not a layer, nor a member of OSI or FSF. I apologize if I say
something wrong.
Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi OSI folks,
Just to abuse a little from your patience.
Since i already misunderstood the concept of
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the
html?
The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be
used with their permission. The permission required is described
here:
I noticed this myself, they have put the OSI certified licence on thie
*front page* of thier site for almost a year, but when you look at the
site you can find the actual license terms, or a link back to it at OSI
(SOP). I won't download thier product because I don't want to get
infected.
please
Quoting Fabian Bastin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I would suggest the term Shared source, as defined by Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/default.mspx
Please note that is not the best place to discuss about shared source,
since it definitely not open-source. Just
Oups...
You are right, sorry!
Fabian
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Fabian Bastin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I would suggest the term Shared source, as defined by Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/default.mspx
Please note that is not the best place to discuss about shared
People,
Thanks for all the feedback. I'll read the suggested articles and try to
understand.
thanks again
guich
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
:
: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the
: open-source specification is so rigid.
:
: I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
: step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
Since i already misunderstood the concept of open-source (which does not
only means source-code-available, but also requires-free-distribution), are
there any other concepts behind free software, except that they are free
The four freedoms of free software:
0)
41 matches
Mail list logo
