On 18 September 2013 13:57, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote:
Am 18.09.2013 14:52, schrieb Pirmin Braun:
You only have to pay extra when it turns out that you've become a
company using the product permanently with more than 5 concurrent
named users.
Perhaps this distinction is too
On 18 September 2013 14:30, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org wrote:
You are trying to combine a COTS business model (charging per use) with open
source and that simply doesn't work. You need to either sell proprietary
COTS software, or adopt a business model that works with open source.
Hi,
Pirmin Braun wrote:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
I'm not an expert, but I to feel like it will not work, that is, not be
considered a OS licese.
Have you checked OSI licenses? The last time I looked for a suitable
license, I
Your statement here:
It gives you all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is meant for:
- the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
- the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
- the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
- the freedom to share the changes
Am 17.09.2013 um 23:45 schrieb Pirmin Braun:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
I have been thinking for a long time about the same issue with QuantumSTEP...
Did you look into running two different projects? One under some real open
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:25:06 +0200
schrieb Riccardo Mottola riccardo.mott...@libero.it :
Hi,
Pirmin Braun wrote:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
I'm not an expert, but I to feel like it will not work, that is, not be
considered a
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:45:43 -0400
schrieb Gregory Casamento greg.casame...@gmail.com :
Your statement here:
It gives you all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is meant for:
- the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
- the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
- the freedom
On 18 September 2013 09:48, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
sure, that's right; but how can I express, that in real life usage it doesn't
make a difference compared to LGPL for 99% of the users?
what if I put it this way:
...
It gives you practically all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:23:20 +0200
schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com :
Am 17.09.2013 um 23:45 schrieb Pirmin Braun:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
I have been thinking for a long time about the same issue
On 18 September 2013 10:18, Robert Slover rjslo...@me.com wrote:
I always sort of liked the Alladin license - proprietary if you wanted the
current release, while older releases got GPL'd. Submitted patches
incorporated into the (proprietary) current release, so that they took a
while to
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:58:19 +0100
schrieb Liam Proven lpro...@gmail.com :
On 18 September 2013 09:48, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
* Don't invent new licences.
If there is one around, that suites our case, I'd be glad to use it.
The point you are making yourself but seem blind to is
On 18 September 2013 10:31, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
If there is one around, that suites our case, I'd be glad to use it.
Look harder. Look at dual licensing.
I'm sorry, I know this is not what you want to hear, but seriously, I
think you are making a serious mistake.
the planned
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2013, at 22:45, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
What is your goal with this license? I don't think that it will work to
encourage contributors, because I certainly wouldn't send patches
Am 18.09.2013 14:52, schrieb Pirmin Braun:
You only have to pay extra when it turns out that you've become a
company using the product permanently with more than 5 concurrent
named users.
Perhaps this distinction is too complex. Non-commercial use - free,
commercial use - pay. Things have to
On 18 Sep 2013, at 13:52, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:50:48 +0100
schrieb David Chisnall david.chisn...@cl.cam.ac.uk :
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2013, at 22:45, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do
On 18 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote:
Perhaps this distinction is too complex. Non-commercial use - free,
commercial use - pay. Things have to be simple.
Non-commercial use is a sticky point, especially for web apps. For example, if
I run a free service that runs
Am 18.09.2013 15:34, schrieb David Chisnall:
For example, if I run a free service that runs the web app and allows
anyone to use it, am I commercial? What happens if I put ads on it?
What about if the ads are only covering the cost of hosting it?
It doesn't matter. The point of a -NC licence
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:34:18 +0100
schrieb David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org :
On 18 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote:
Perhaps this distinction is too complex. Non-commercial use - free,
commercial use - pay. Things have to be simple.
Non-commercial use is a
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:34:18 +0100
schrieb David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org :
On 18 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote:
Perhaps this distinction is too complex. Non-commercial use - free,
we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
What do you think about it?
--
Pirmin Braun - IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH - Am Hofbräuhaus 1 - 96450
Coburg
+49 2642 40526292 +49 174 9747584 - skype:pirminb www.intars.de p...@intars.de
Geschäftsführer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf
I don't think it would satisfy FSF's standards for a free software license not
OSI's standards for an open source license. OTOH, I think license cannot
differentiate between classes of users to satisfy FSF, OSI, Debian etc. I
remember there was a discussion about a license that proscribed you
21 matches
Mail list logo
