META. Where is the archive?
The mailing list help tells me how to retrieve a numbered message fromt the archive, but not how to search the archive. How does one do it? -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What license to pick...
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial use (I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes The GPL encourages commercial use (I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the OSI rules require all their licences to permit it as well). First, of course, one has to define commercial use, and this is the great problem with "no commercial use" claues. Some people mean actually selling the software. Some include giving it away as to someone with whom one has a commercial relationship (e.g. Kermit). Some mean using it internally in the course of a business (they may make a distinction between internal use and providing access to the software as a service, although the distinction may be blurred). The GPL permits all of these activities, but requires that, in the first two cases, the, possibly modified, source code be provided under the GPL, and that no licensing conflicts be created. For the third case, it permits unpublished modifications and mixing with code with conflicting licences. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What license to pick...
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? [DJW:] No. You can ask a fee for the supply of the recorded media and for support, but you cannot charge for the licence itself. You can even charge for the process of creating the binary (although anyone with the source can create their own binary without paying you). You could charge a huge fee, and in some markets that might work, because the market is small or technically unsophisticated. People like Red Hat are charging you for the media and the pressing of the Linux CD image onto that media, packaging, support and printed documentation++, not for the copy of the code and the licence to use it. I think RH may make documentation available on a GPL type basis, but I believe one of the FSF's concerns is the number of free packages that really need commercial documentation before you can use them. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls [DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their intended purpose (possibly top 2 percentile in that respect!). "Transparent Media/Format" - Any format/media of storage in which the text and graphics are machine-readable and editable, using programs which are available both free of charge and free from restrictions of use (eg HTML, plain ASCII text, XML where the document data type is 'free'). You mean document type defintion, not document data type. A "free" DTD is not sufficient as DTDs only define the mechanically checkable syntax rules not the semantics. There is an alternative, called schemas, that goes a lot more towards semantics, but I've still to read up on them. With a DTD, it might be possible to make Word 2000 "HTML" comply with this example. HTML is too loose. Often people mean a combination of the tags from published HTML DTDs with proprietory tags (often in an order that cannot possibly be described by a DTD or is not descibed by the one they claim), with GIFs, JPEGs, Javascript and styles sheets. Many may even include Flash and other ActiveX components. People may consider Word 2000 "HTML" (even though it is really XML and requires Word to edit sensibly) as HTML. Particularly if you include proprietory elements, you need commercial browsers, which have export restrictions with respect to about half a dozen countries. The HTML document may well be auto-generated and not the true revisable form document. The examples exclude much more open SGML document types than HTML, like docbook. The images associated with HTML may well not be the revisable form (as well as the GIF patent problem). The revisable form may contain layers or may be in a vector drawing format. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Really??? What was wrong with it - I did it all by hand, so I thought it wouldn't have any weirdness [DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simplelinux.org%2Flegal%2 FsLODL.html What is the version number for 'current' w3c standard HTML? I will specify that as the example when I find out. [DJW:] 4.01 for HTML, XHTML 1.0 for the latest released standard. Note that there are probably no fully compliant browsers for either of these. CSS2 for style sheets. The HTML document may well be auto-generated and not the true revisable form document. Still transparent though - that is the condition, rather than the original form being required. You think I should speify original form? [DJW:] That's weaker than the full GPL, which requires the form normally used for making changes. Some people have proposed using obfuscated source to get round the GPL, but this requirement tends to invalidate that attack. [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
ADMIN - All contributions are being bounced to heder From:
Apologies for sending this on list, but attempts to communicate using a guessed list owner address failed but didn't bounce and the ISP that is the target of the relevant MX records says they are no longer customers and disclaims responsiblity. Ever since I subscribed to the list, every posting I make, and I assume every posting anyone else makes, receives a bounce like the following. Unfortunately something (probably Exchange here - not my choice) strips the headers from the bounced message, so I can't work out who is forwarding this. However, someone is using broken mailing software to forward contributions to the list to an invalid address. Some software in the chain is broken. The forwarding software should have set its own envelope address to catch bounces, and definitely not copied the header From: to the envelope. Jaring should bounce to the envelope address, and the list should set the list owner as the envelope address (Exchange/Outlook strips the envelope, so I can't tell whether there is a problem with the list, but, generally, Unix based list software gets it right). This has been happening since at least late September. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS. -Original Message- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: deanna.my: host not found) The original message was received at Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:27:41 +0800 (MYT) from root@localhost - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - 550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: deanna.my: host not found) ATT17231.TXT RE: NASM Licence ATT17231.TXT From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd code, but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference. [DJW:] That would appear to make the resulting licence to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any redistribution would be a copyright violation for the GPLed parts. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: NASM License
From: William Abernathy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the authors of the Software. The authors reserve the right to grant this [DJW:] A licence is just the giving of permission, so all this is really saying is that the current licence does not permit theses activities, but notes that the copyright owners may be prepared to grant alternative licenses. They could always grant such licenses, unless there were a contract to the contrary, or it would conflict with a licence applying to material they had used which was not owned by them, so the fact that they are willing doesn't seem to change the legal position, and is therefore purely informative. IANAL -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
From: Andrew J Bromage [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I would think that it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the output of a compiler is a derivative work of (or "work based on") the compiler or any standard libraries that must be provided as part of a conforming [DJW:] The FSF appears to consider use of the standard libraries to constitute a derivative work, but licenses them under a weaker licence that permits their use, but still requires the library source code to be supplied. This is only true of the core libraries; soem libraries are under the strict licence. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: LGPL clarification
From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [DJW:] IANAL Under current copyright law, reproducing a similar concept, even using different language, would be a violation once I've been exposed to the [DJW:] Are you sure of this. I thought that this was one of the key differences between patents and copyright. (Obviously a straight translation into a foreign language would be a violation, but I thought that paraphrasing was different.) original work, so I couldn't write a license from scratch that resembled the LGPL either without FSF permission. Given that the probability that FSF would give that permission to someone outside FSF is roughly, oh, zero, that means that the LGPL is for practical purposes the only Open Source license that can ever exist to cover libraries. [DJW:] I would have thought that refusing permission would have been in conflict with the position on patents taken by the GPL and key members of the FSF, even if you are correct about copyrighting concepts. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS. /IANAL
RE: Misunderstanding of the basics?
From: Ralf Schwoebel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL says you MUST, I can not see why the OSI should not accept that? [DJW:] In typical compliance language, SHALL is the most strict level of compliance. I'd normally treat MUST as a synonym. In any case, the GPL is only requiring that you record the removal of the code, whereas you are forbidding its removal, in this clause, not the one you quoted: 3.3. You are not allowed to modify, delete or suspend the IPL code concerning the License Key. If you use parts of the IPL Code in your own software you are obliged to include all IPL Code concerning License Key in your code in a way that any user of your software has to have a License Key from intraDAT. This clause shall only be applicable for IPL Code which includes code for License Keys or for such code for which on www.intradat.com is stated a License Key is required. In fact, I would interpret any restriction that a licence key check be retained as being a conflicting licence, making the GPL void. [ IANAL ] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two different legal documents are functionally equivalent? [DJW:] As I understand it, they are determining whether the licence is a member of the set of possible "open source" licences. The place to define the liabilities and remedies is in the license. My companies license has some detail in this area. [DJW:] IANAL, but I believe that it can only be done in a contract. Many "licenses" are actually both a licence and a contract, and some of the arguments about shrink wrapped licences are about whether a contract actually exists. In English, law contracts require an offer, acceptance of that offer and a consideration (something given in return). It would probably help if "open source" licenses that attempt to go beyond a statement of permissions explicitly identified all three components. [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and multi-platform. [DJW:] There are royalty free and "open source" tools for creating and viewing PDF, from third parties (e.g. recent ghostscript, and ghostscript old enough to be GPLed). -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: [Fwd: Germany]
From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The rest of the world does provide these automatic warranties, but we at least let intelligent people bargain them out of a contract. Why should I be forced to pay for a warranty I don't want or need? [DJW:] I seem to remember that there are actually different rules in the UK for members of the public (consumers) and businesses; at least at one time, I believe this is one of the reasons why businesses were reluctant to sell specialist products direct. (Businesses being assumed to understand what they are buying.) [DJW:] [IANAL] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
Forutnately for us Europeans, that doesn't apply here - software and algorithms are, IIUC, non-patentable in Europe. IANAL [DJW:] The recent UK government consultation paper++ on the possibility of introducing US like software patents said that European law allowed software patents where the invention had "technical effect", but didn't define "technical effect". I'm not competent to interpret it and I'm sure the lawyers will not attempt to interpret except in the contezxt of a specific client relationship, so there has to be an element of FUD there. (I didn't get the impression that this was limited to "embeded *systems*".) ++ Unfortunately they didn't archive the URL, so it is now a dead link. However, I believe the EEC is still considering the issue of software patents and had had some advice against taking them to US levels: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/indprop/softpaten.htm One telling quote is: The current legal situation is unsatisfactory because it is lacking clarity and legal certainty. Computer programs "as such" are excluded from patentability. Yet, thousands of patents for technical inventions using a computer program have been granted by national patent offices and by the European Patent Office (EPO). -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Wording in Open Source Definition
From: Richard Boulton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?" [DJW:] The GPL is Open Source and the answer for the GPL is, as I understand it: No licence fee may be charged for the use of any intellectual property in the software (i.e. copyright or patent licences). An indefinitely large fee may be charged for: - the media; - placing the software on the media; - warranties; - support; - etc. This fee is is between the immediate supplier and immediate recipient; a supplier cannot insist that the recipient charge anyone down stream, although, I would hope, that they could impose a restriction that they would not provide any support or any warranty to an indirect recipient, or allow the the immediate recipient to act as their agent in selling support and warranty downstream. I think you will find that RedHat is based on the ability to charge in this way. (The one restriction on supply charges in the GPL is that, once executables are supplied, charges for source must be based on true copying, handling and media costs, not on what the market will bear. One point of the GPL is that the market will not bear large prices when anyone can redistribute or support the software.) IANAL
RE: boomberg bloopers
From: Chloe Hoffman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Predatory pricing is the act of someone with market power selling something below the marginal cost thereof with the primary intent to drive out [DJW:] The marginal cost of software is very low, which is why this issue arises in the first place. If you are not allowed to include design costs, such a definition would not be much of a problem for "free" software. Incidentally, the subject of this thread is based on a false premise that you cannot charge for the supply of Open Source software. Actually, traditionally, Open Source software has been paid for with other Open Source software and with maintenance programming of the application, so, traditionally, the real costs has been higher than the acquisition cost. This is not true of many end users today. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What is Copyleft?
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load and link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not that DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program ever [DJW:] My understanding is that the restrictions only apply to the distribution of code. They are designed to stop people distributing code which forces the recipient to have to pay for a licence to use a pre-requisite library (static or dynamic). If that is correct, you can write a program that is derived from copylefted code and load it and link it with any DLL you like, but you cannot give it to someone else if they cannot sensibly use it without first obtaining that DLL. The real borderline case is when you supply a token version of the library. I seem to remember that this hinges on whether the full function of the copylefted code is accessible with that token library. IANAL [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What is Copyleft?
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Is the argument that a run-time link to external code creates a derivative work (in the sense that the copyright statutes define a derivative work) of [DJW:] I don't think so. It think the argument is about taking GPLed code that doesn't link with the library and deriving a work that does link with the library. Whilst it is arguable as to whether the FSF's current interpretation of their licence is consistent with what the licence actually says, a copyright owner does have the power to license code with a restriction that derived works may not be dynamically linked with certain categories of shared library. the Program and the external code? Under this theory, you couldn't use GPL'd code with RPC or HTML or SMPT or any other inter-process communication system unless the whole system was GPL'd! [DJW:] I don't believe there is any problem in using it even with proprietory shared libraries providing that the shared library is being substituted for a licence compatible one. The problem is in producing a derived work specifically intended to be used with a proprietory library, including the thorny cases of various devices intended to artificially create the first situation. You can also do what you like for internal use. To be more concrete, if you develop a library that implements an algorithm for predicting future prices in the widgets market but decide that, to save development costs, you should use a GPLed user interface library, if you could dynamically link without restriction, you could create a GPLed user interface that was only useable with your program to achieve something that you would not be allowed to do if you statically linked. You would therefore have produced a complete work in which the GPLed part was only useable as part of the proprietory whole. If I understand the internals of the situation correctly (which I may not), a program that binds to a DLL at runtime does so through the mediation of the OS. Data is packaged, handed to the OS, the OS moves it from the [DJW:] In general no. In general a few addresses in the code are fixed up by the loader. A small amount of code may get added in some implementations, but that code is normally self contained. IANAL -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What is Copyleft?
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Interesting point. In the ordinary course of programming, I suspect there would be no derivative work created, hence the GPL should provide no obstacle for distributing the program as open source. As you mentioned, [DJW:] In the normal course of programming the host program will be combined with the header files (or typelib) from the libary to produce the object code and the further reference will be made to the library in producing the final, executable. You would need clean room development to avoid this. One other point is that the argument is about whether the letter of the GPL allows something rather than whether the spirit does. If the letter is found defective, it is resonable to assume that the next version of the [L]GPLed code will have a licence that is no longer defective. You would then be stuck with having to maintain a separate development branch. IANAL [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: What is Copyleft?
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The function prototypes in header files almost certainly cannot be copyrighted, thus there's no point in licensing their use. In fact, you can almost always call an exported function by ordinal number, thus I wouldn't even have to include the actual function names in my non-licensed code; I could just call the functions by ordinal rather than by name. [DJW:] The LGPL explicitly discusses this case, saying that a derivative work may not exist, but even if it does, providing that the worst you do is include 10 line inline subroutines, they will not impose restrictions. So, for most normal cases, the unlinked object case either doesn't require a license or gets an unrestricted one. In my opinion, not a derivative work, because the parts are never combined into one work. In my opinion, from the standpoint of making a work a derivative work, the law does not understand or care about the concept of a [DJW:] There is part of the wording of clause 5 that might be taken to read that 6 should apply to a dynamically linked executable, even if it is not a derivative work. I believe they can say that inputting the dynamic library to the linker is restricted even if none of it comes out. IANAL [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: license - copyright
From: John Cowan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a transfer must be in writing and signed by the developer. [DJW:] The Free Software Foundations assignment form, quoted recently, appears to be in the form of a contract. It includes a token payment to establish a "consideration". *** IANAL *** No, the date that it was first fixed in a tangible medium such as paper, canvas, stone, or a hard disk. The date is not required, but makes the way of the infringer hard -- he cannot claim that he didn't know the work was still in copyright. [DJW:] I'd heard that it was the year of first publication; international copyright law gives only limited protection to unpublished works. *** IANAL *** -- [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: license - copyright
From: Toon Knapen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Do you mean that, if you release your work under the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically the copyright owner ? [DJW:] Gnu is not the same as GPLed. Gnu is things like GCC, not things like the Linux kernel. As I already mentioned, the FSF have a specific form for assigning copyright. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Apache vs. BSD licenses
From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] source products, but only if the result becomes open source after a time delay, say 3-5 years. This is plenty of time for a company to gain revenue from the sale value of software, and should [DJW:] That sort of time figure agrees with my idea as to the time limit that should be applied to most software patents, and for similar reasons. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works
From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms" instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...". [DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL is more restrictive than the OSD definition. Such a definition would take the BSD, XFree and various other licenses outside the definition, probably more than halving the amount of software covered. The intention is clearly that the GPL be covered by the OSD definition, so you can be "open source" but GPLed if you want a more restrictive definition. Note that you cannot always merge software from two different OSD compatible licenses. I would guess that one of the main starting points for the OSD was that GPL and BSD licenses both be fully compatible. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: GPL and Copyright Notification
From: August Zajonc [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Note: If this has been covered before, I'd be happy for a pointer to the proper list thread or FAQ. [DJW:] This is GPL specific, so ought to be asked on the USENET gnu.misc.discuss (?) group. Powered by MyCoolSoftware [DJW:] IANAL but I believe that any requirement to include the above line would be in breach of the GPL as it would be an additional constraint. Copyright 2001 MyCoolGroup [DJW:] The GPL is founded on copyright, so it is essential that the copyright ownership of any GPLed work is clear. Original parts of a derived work remain the intellectual property of the original author and they are the people that own the copyright of those parts. On the other hand, this notice is misleading, as it implies that using the software assigns the copyright of the discussion content, which would be an additional constraint and not allowed. In most cases, it seems to me that the FSF actually grant additional permissions so that the equivalent of the generated web page is not considered a derived work of the program. As I understand it, in Europe, the original author has a legal "moral right" to be identified as the author even if the copyright is assigned, so attempting to hide the true origins of the code might also breach a right that cannot be waived. As I understand it, the requirement to display copyright notices is inteded to insure that people realise the program is copyrighted and are also made aware of the licence document. It may well be acceptable to give a reference to the full list of coyright owners. You appear not to have met what is probably the most imporant requirement, which is a pointer to the text of the GPL. IANAL [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: OpenLDAP license
From: Frank LaMonica [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I agree with you completely. BSD is one of the only software licenses that allows PEOPLE the freedom they need to establish their own business objectives. I would go even further to say that there are only three [DJW:] There are different balances. BSD favours businesses that use the software but means that the original author may not benefit as much. Open source is most likely to happen when both parties gain a benefit. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I hope this is not the case. I wouldn't like Microsoft to have the ability to suppress WINE because it uses the Windows API. [DJW:] They are attempting to achieve something similar for MS Office products. The MSDN Library licence forbids the use of the file format documentation for Word, etc., for what I interpret to be: - software that does not run on Windows; - software that attempts to compete with MS Office. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] hypocrisy. As the open source community has long since proven repeatedly, particularly with its contributions to Internet-related software, the enforcement of appropriate standards can be encouraged and achieved without recourse to licenses that prevent effective open source development. [DJW:] However, my impression is that that only holds whilst the implementation is in the open source arena. Closed source developers tend to be the ones that create the greatest travesties of open standards, so it is possibly not surprising that the same people are wary of creating open standards - they may be judging other people by their own standards. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: tomsrtbt license
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] * no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component parts * * such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which apply to practically everything!!! * It seems to me to mislead as to the copyright ownership, mislead as to the rights under the GPL (people can extract the GPLed material without mentioning your package, but the implication is to the contrary) and confuse styles of licence with the copyrights that those licenses relax, not to mention begging the defintion of breaking into two. IANAL -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Is this better for tomsrtbt?
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Now, again, as I read it, if I provide an http or ftp directory, which contains 10 files, and one of those has all the licenses, and one is the tarball that makes the floppy, and one is an html file that clearly lists both and explains what they are and why, then *I* am in compliance with: [DJW:] The problem here is that you can almost guarantee that people will deep link to the floppy constructing tarball, defeating the whole purpose of the requirements that the licence accompany the software, i.e. to ensure that every recipient is fully informed of the licence. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: Real-World Copyright Assignment
From: Greg Herlein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for derivative [DJW:] That's a subset of commercial use. Some people, e.g. the kermit people, consider distribution for profit on a CD to be commercial use. They also consider any distribution were there is a commercial relationship to be commercial, but both are allowed for open source. Some people consider internal use by for profit organisations to be commercial, but this sort of use is definitely permitted for open source. Some open source licences permit conversion to binary only, non-redistributable, form, but others don't. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: License Question
From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is used in a commercial application ? [DJW:] Allow: yes. Require: I believe not. In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the software, but you cannot prevent anyone who already has it from undercutting your price, and supplying it themselves. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: GPL and closed source
From: Carlo Wood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Selling closed source plugins wouldn't be illegal anyway, but wouldn't it be illegal for the buyers to link the bought plugins with the GPL-ed opensource? If so then that means that My impression was that the FSF only really cared about re-distribution, so the real issue would be with the fact that the proprietory plug-in might have to be linked against a copy of the shared library by the supplier, a borderline case, needing a real lawyer. My impression is the whole area is sufficiently borderline to require a real lawyer. There are precedents for GPLed containers running proprietory code, e.g. the Linux HP Desk Jet drivers (this might be LGPL). The proprietory part is not linked - I think the communication is either through pipes or through sockets. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
