Larry - For what it is worth, I think your analysis is exactly correct.
-Rod
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Here are two examples that I think would not be allowed
under OSL which are allowed under IDPL.
A commercial database repair tool that uses the on disk
structure
Can we stop these posts already?
--
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 http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I had described
A commercial database repair tool ...parts of the Firebird
database code.. with proprietary code
In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a
single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins.
To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to
Version 9
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Can we stop these posts already?
About 280KB worth of e-mail has now be exchanged in discussing this
topic, including the 'amusing' spin-off discussions.
It's certainly an important topic, if for no other reason
This Email was prepared in satisfaction of OSI Certification Process Step
4. for OSI certification of the NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1 (NOSA).
4.a. Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your
license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs.
Bryan,
Thanks for your detailed explanation of the reasons for your new license. I
haven't read the license itself yet, but I want to comment on the supposed
differences you identified between the NASA license and other
already-approved licenses:
i. NASA legal counsel requires that
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Bryan Geurts wrote:
1H. Recipient means anyone who acquires the Subject Software under
this Agreement, including all Contributors.
1M. Use means the application or employment of the Subject
Software for any purpose.
3F. In an effort to track usage and maintain
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
iii. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately
track usage of
released software for documentation and benefits
realized?purposes. See 3.F.
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is
the effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the
draft NOSA requests rather than requires users to register with
NASA.
If the intent is to show an effort, the
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
work and grants permission to distribute his preexisting
work. Author B accepts these permissions granted by the
GPL and modifies the preexisting work. This is now a
derivative work.
daniel wallace scripsit:
*sigh*
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
Preparing is what B does, not what A does.
There was a meeting of the minds so Author A and
Author B are in privity... they are not strangers to
Hi all,
Has the net-snmp license (http://www.net-snmp.org/COPYING.txt) been
specifically OSI approved or rejected. It's bsd-like, but OSI
certification goes a long way towards selling it to management as safe
to use.
Thanks,
mwa
--
Mark W. Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss archive
The GPL is not a contract. It requires no consent and no privity.
The author simply declares how she exercises her rights. Nobody has
to agree to it.
Seth Johnson
-Original Message-
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:40:33 -0500
Subject: Why the GPL is
(just to the list)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is the
effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the draft NOSA
requests rather than requires users to register with NASA.
Does this really belong in
...etc...more repeats of old arguments already corrected.
I find this thread interesting in that it shows that it is not just the
lawyers for SCO that have problems understanding copyright law. While
this is not to excuse all the confusions here, I do suspect that it lends
some
--- daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author A and Author B are in contractual privity.
Author A approached Author B with a GPL license and
Author B said to Author A, I accept the GPL and agree
to its terms. There was a meeting of the minds so
Author A and Author B are in privity... they
--- daniel wallace wrote:
See the Supreme Court citation [i]t goes without
saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.?
And that is precisely the reason why any license,
including for instance, the BSD license, would be
non-binding as a contract to anyone other than whoever
entered the
The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in
many locations. For example, in Taiwan the
Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme
law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is
governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the
ROC's sovereignty and copyright laws
O.K. - I'm going to rant. Nothing personal here Bryan, but NASA put
some good time into this so I'm going to pick apart your resonse as a
non-NASA person. Specifically, you state some views that are
misguided. So, I post my response because so many times on this list
people try to play
Hi. Sorry about the autoresponses that have gone to list
contributors. Here's what happened:
1) Worm forges email from an autoresponder to the list subscription
address.
2) list manager sends confirmation.
3) autoresponder confirms.
I've unsubscribed the autoresponders.
--
--My blog is at
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of
licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
Biggest problem of all here - who in all of
First of all general comments. I see real problems for this license in
cases where the software was written entirely by civil servents. In
such a case it can't be a bare license. It'd have to be a contract.
But if it's a contract aren't you trying to create a copyright for the
work through the
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires
tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the
OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it.
However, the NASA license does *not* require it.
--
Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead
The draft NOSA implies that U.S. government works, though in the public
domain in the U.S., are subject to copyright in other countries. Is this
really true? The Berne Convention seems ambiguous on the case; it seems
to me that it doesn't clearly foresee the case of works which are never
in
On 2004.02.12 20:05 Andy Tai wrote:
The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in
many locations. For example, in Taiwan the
Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme
law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is
governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the
25 matches
Mail list logo
