On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 03:20:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first part only allows distribution for money if it's for use offline.
This forbids distribution for money over a network. Either makes
it non-free.
I think this is just like the
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 04:34:05PM -0700, David Wiley wrote:
I have been hoping to update the original OpenContent license for sometime,
if I
could ever get a dialog going about its strengths and weaknesses... What
specific
suggestions do you (and everyone else) have?
My suggestion is to
I'd suggest you start with the Open Publication License, remove the options,
and generalize it. They did a pretty good job, and the attribution requirements
work well to give a little edge to the people who paid for the work without
taking the result out of Open Source.
Thanks
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
a new documentation package of min has been rejected by ftpadmin:
The license's restrictions on distribution for money make it non-free.
Well, the license is the OpenContent License, see
www.opencontent.org
I thought (and this is what I remember from a thread
* Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ opencontent license ]
Joey The license is DFSG complient unless one of the two optional
Joey clauses at the end are invoked. The text that references the
Joey opencontent license will say if one of those terms is enabled,
Joey they are off by
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first part only allows distribution for money if it's for use offline.
This forbids distribution for money over a network. Either makes
it non-free.
I think this is just like the Artistic license restriction - notice the word
sole. It means that
Hi,
a new documentation package of min has been rejected by ftpadmin:
The license's restrictions on distribution for money make it non-free.
Well, the license is the OpenContent License, see
www.opencontent.org
I thought (and this is what I remember from a thread in
debian-policy), that the
7 matches
Mail list logo
