Hi John,
Just a little question:
1) The freedom to study the source code and adapt it to your needs
3) The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements
publicly
Freedoms 1 and 3 imply that the source code is freely accessible.
When you mean freely accessible, does it means
When you mean freely accessible, does it means that we can't charge for
downloads?
No, you can charge all you want, but since your customers can freely
redistribute your code, you'd better offer offer your paid users
something extra so they want to give you money. Suggestions:
- Support
used with their permission. The permission required is described
um, i think this could be misunderstood. you don't need thier
*permission* you need to meet the guidelines that they require. this
does not require written permission per se (at least that I can find) as
long as you are distributing
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and
On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
Y is
Hi there -
We are building a professional open source company and are curious which
open source license you suggest we use. Our goal is to build a profitable
company around dual licensing - providing an open source version of our
product and a commercial version of the product.
We feel that
Rod Dixon scripsit:
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under
Clint,
I'd be *shocked* if anyone on license-discuss was willing to give you
free legal advice. You need to consult a lawyer about this (you'll
probably get a number of contacts at least from your email).
In general, you need to figure out what your business goals are and then
consult with a
Clint Oram scripsit:
Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are:
1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product
through GPL-like conditions
2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our
commercial release. What do
Based on the suggestions I have been given, I have modified the Adaptive
Public License and have re-posted it as version 0.1C.
http://mamook.net/APL.html
The following changes were made:
- One sentence within section 3.2 did not conform to the rules of Open
Source. The sentence has been
11 matches
Mail list logo
