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
: 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
