restrict posting.
Don't do it.
Replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
'd suggest looking at the GNU GPL,
LGPL, BSD/MIT, or MozPL licenses. They are widely used, broadly
accepted, and largely allow for code exchange between projects.
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What pa
can
perform perfectly well on all technical points, but still fail to be
policy conformant.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-s
on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 08:09:50PM -0700, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2001 07:25 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > As much GNU/Linux development
> > happens outside the immediate auspices of the FSF, the old "GNU
> > discourages man&
wcomers to the free software arena are numbingly unaware of these
issues.
Notes:
1. Progressing nicely, and possibly ready to be included in the
mainstream OpenBSD package by the end of this year.
2. I'm sure that silence has just ended for me ;-)
3. In its various int
time, Compliments, and Have a Nice Day...
> Daniel MD [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] of IM-Thinking Consulting
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? The
N'T Think that software can be more free that THIS, without
> compromising development evolution and standardization.
Talk to Sun, and/or study the Java/SCSL debates.
I suspect it's premature to start discussing specific language until
you've clarified (internally and externally)
ut
> > > compromising development evolution and standardization.
> >
> >Talk to Sun, and/or study the Java/SCSL debates.
> >
> >I suspect it's premature to start discussing specific language until
> >you've clarified (internally and externally) you
tention was only to create "...a
> one-stop point of contact".
With all respect to Mr. Robinson, the problem is one of perception, not
reality, and isn't addressable via licensing. I'd suggesting looking at
other problems to be addressed in the licensign space.
--
Karsten
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons.
Concur.
PS: Jeffry, could you pay closer attention to your quoting style,
attribution of lines is unclear in your post, I've attempted correction
Institute shall encourage and support the development of one
| or more computer programs, protocols, or other software,
| such as the World Wide Web Consortium's P3P program, capable
| of being installed on computers, or computer networks, with
| Internet acces
ten found that
the sugar without the pill isn't very effective.
The risk of dual-licensing is creating license-incompatible forks should
some downstream licensee choose to exercise only a subset of the
licenses.
In practice, I've not yet seen this occur.
Cheers.
--
Karsten M. Sel
f such a device or medium
for making digital musical recordings or analog musical
recordings.
IANAL, TINLA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
htt
et posts.
Who precisely are you replying to? Your mail neither quotes, nor
references, a prior post. I am unsure if this is a specific or general
response.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt"
'll find many references to the DMCA, also known as the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act, through a web search engine such as Google.
Briefly, it's largely sections 512 and 1201 of Title 17, United States
Code, which may also be located through a search engine.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self
o use it in a commercial product, they
> have to pay someone.
Such a license would not be OSI Open Source or FSF Free Software.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
Praying for the victims.
PGP signature
on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Rod Dixon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:31:10AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> > > Karsten,
> > >
> > > >
on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 08:31:05PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Karsten M. Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 7:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Su
covered by copyright law only?
"Broadcasting" over the Internet is somewhat more problematic than radio
broadcast. There are inherent copies involved (though airplay also
creates copies). Selling Internet broadcast rights is probably
possible.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTEC
enting the control (arguably a use) is prohibited, under Title
17.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
Praying for the victims.
PGP signature
cial
>distributors
Commercial != proprietary.
Try again.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
Praying for the victims.
PGP signature
r certain circumstances. I didn't intend
> to be subtle about the meaning of the word "use."
I hate to be the one to out-lawyer the lawyers
OK, no I don't. ;-)
But I did want to point out that the expression v. usage boundary has
now been blurred.
Peace.
--
Kar
ay.
And foreign nationals travelling to the US are at risk of arrest,
incarceration, and criminal legal action due to the US.
Your view is naive.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't yo
license specifically
> because none of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting
> the set of features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD
> compliant).
Might we inquire as to what this license is and where it might be found?
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self &l
; a new license anymore.
I'm not suggesting that, and I hope you're not insinuating that I am.
However, the OSI should approve new licenses only with extreme prejudice
and deliberation. A slow, cumbersome, inefficient, deliberative process
that drives most comers to abandon the
^^^
If you assume this is a goal, you are very, very, mistaken.
I am not a member of OSI, I don't speek for it.
IANAL, TINLA.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understa
of endeavor.
Dual licensing can be applied in which the user may, at his or her
discretion, choose from one or more licenses. The choice may not be
applied by the field of use as you are doing.
IANAL, TINLA. I am not a member of OSI.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ce code is
not allowed.
Withholding of build support is obfuscation by omission.
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-sy
ent.
The intent, as I understand, is to increase the efficacy of the GPL to
encourage extension of the presense of free software.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home
or otherwise unaccessible, to
exercise fair use, and access public domain works, is unsupported by
copyright law. The 11th Circuit's Wind Done Gone ruling also has some
interesting comments concerning ownership in copyright and ownership in
works.
Note that other circumstances would argue
on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:06:47AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 October 2001, "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > > but copyright law reserves no rights to the author regarding &qu
niac.
I'd like to suggest that discussions consisting largely of references to
megalomania, living rooms, garages, and bedrooms, suggests the topic has
strayed rather wide the charter of license-discuss.
I'd also strongly recommend Mr. Beck to reflect quietly on the counsel
of two attorneys who&#
ne was complaining, so we have changed it!
>
> Best regards
>
> Álvaro Amorim PInto
Great! I'm glad that this was resolved quickly and amicably.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt&quo
vored with responses. My killfile trigger finger is itching badly.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
he GPL.
Pedantically, it's John's last condition that's crucial: a GPL
compatible license must impose no restrictions not present in the GPL
itself.
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt"
uld be helpful.
I'm being nitpicky (it's late, I'm tired). I've seen far worse
articles. This one's middlin'. I wouldn't add it to my whitepaper
collection though, it needs some straightening up.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the license which says you're prohibited from violating
> patents, just an external law. The problems with this workaround are
> left as an exercise to
> the reader.)
Yep.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part o
ation on them & everyone's
> understanding goes up on the finer points of that license.
>
> Perhaps there should be an Open Source Top 5 chart? 8^)
How do you mean? Most frequently used licenses?
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.
Software®" mark, that the true mark is as
shown above, not "Open Source", and that the company's claims fail the
OSD on multiple points.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't yo
iscuss mailing list where
the situation was first brought to my attention, should you care to
follow up on the matter.
I am not a lawyer, I don't represent any particular interest in this
matter. This email is strictly informational.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 01:48:43AM +, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sunday 28 October 2001 10:43 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > What can be done more to this effect?
> >
> > The "Open Source" trademark was not certified.
> >
> > Ha
ified Open Source Software" (thanks to Larry for
straighting me out on this). This usage should be strongly emphasized
-- anything less is not the mark.
> disclaimer: This is a possible NewsForge story; if you don't want to
> be quoted please say so in your reply.
On the record.
OS. This is a violation of
> clause 8. Wasn't the OpenMotif license reject for the same reason?
I'd disqualify it on 6, but not 8. It's not specific to a product, but
it *is* specific to a field of endeavor: OS applications.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
. The license is not OSD
compliant.
> Ken Brown
IANLA, TINLA, YADA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Personal use may be allowed under one of the enumerated exeptions
107-121 (an in particular, fair use). However, derivative works are a
specific exclusive right of authors.
Please provide yourself with a rudimentary familiarity with l
on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:13:54PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sunday 04 November 2001 09:47 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > > > The patent license creates an explicit class of works under which the
> > > > software is not freely utilizea
somehow thought that the idea of the free software is incompatible
> with both copyrights and patent laws...
No.
My attitude is that aspects of intellectual property law are features of
the legal landscape to be exploited (or muted) by free software. Some
of the features are
om first principles and
identify what we hope to accomplish, and write language to accomplish
this. My feeling is that the current OSD is consistent with the view
that the view that the proposed fee-for-use shareware license is not
intended to be compliant, and is not in fact compliant, with the O
license shall not require a royalty or other fee to make
> or use such copies.
I'm opposed to such a change until it's demonstrated that the existing
definition doesn't already achieve this effect. I've posted my
rationale for suggesting it does
on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:21:06AM +, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2001 10:11 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > > on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:58:54AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:05:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 05:34:48PM -0500, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> > > The BSD+Patent license doesn't restrict use either. The paten
te that "use" is one of the permitted actions under the BSD
license, though this isn't a condition used to indicate acceptance of
terms. The GPL specifically excludes consideration of any actions
concerned with "running" a program.
A narrow reading of the GPL might h
this
week. Receiving dozens of "I'm out of the office" messages for any post
made to a widely subscribed list is an inconvenience at best.
Please practice safe email.
And enjoy the holidays.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.c
,
deviations from a small, simple, well understood license greatly
simplifies this process.
I think it would be fair to say that a license under the terms I
describe above is:
- Likely to be found conformant with the OSI-OSD and approved by the
OSI board.
- Follows a well-established procedure f
on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37:21PM -0800, Ken Arromdee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > Clause 1:
> >
> >"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
> >
> > The terms for paym
, and Sony v. Connectix, all of which
establish the clear separation of coverage for functional and expressive
aspects of copyright in software.
Examine, but critically.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don&#
nging the
underlying legal landscape directly is very unlikely to achieve anything
remotely resembling what you want. I advocate changing the incentive
structure, and/or building a constituency who benefit from a different
regime, rather than blindly wasting energies on battlements with no hope
on Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 08:48:16PM +, Christopher Brien
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi
>
> Karsten M. Self wrote
> ---
> "This license is not granted".
>
> The basis for my earlier comment that this is largely a machine that turns
> itself off.
>
munity benefits.
>
> Am I right?
>
> To paint the full picture: R-Quant links GPL software.
This could be a GPL violation. Have you contacted the author(s) of the
GPLd software linked to?
> ciao -- Nando
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-
m http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html#list)
is "to review licenses submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]".
I'd like to ask (again) that topics of a general nature not specific to
discussion of a given license be taken elsewhere. Their authors too if
self discipline doesn't suf
on Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 07:02:55PM -0800, Chris D. Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:11:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:58:54AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > [E
ve rights to commercial sale? This is a violation of OSD
definition #1: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling
or giving away...".
Clarify your goals. Examine the OSD to see if they conform to
definitions of free software. If you need suggestions for a compatible
li
not convinced by the
arguments of either side of the debate.
My sense is that there is a widespread practice of copying functional
language from contracts. And that there is an implicit understanding
that this is sound practice.
Any of the lawyers care to pitch in on this one?
Peace.
-
tement that software is being
released without restrictions would suffice.
A license that is a non-grant appears to function largely in the same
fashion as a switch that turns itself off. Being legally inoperative, I
see no reason for OSI to waste time considering it.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Se
Technology/standards license: MIT, BSD, Apache.
- Core+ licenses, allowing for proprietary modules: MozPL, IBM
PSL.
- By contrast, selecting an existing license (or set of licenses)
reduces your cycle time to that required by the internal
decisionmaking process of your organi
h the
> > date.
There are, under US law, remedies for infringement only available for
registered works. See generally, 17 USC Chapter 4, specifically section
411 and 412.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch4.html
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAI
7;s terms are met if the the
interpretation is that the terms are those of the GPL. This is a
limited compatibility as, again, purely GPLd code would not be capable
of being incorporated into GPLd code.
In this sense, the GPL is something of a potential minimum -- many
licensing terms can mig
I'm not sure. As such, I don't see it as a license, in fact,
it says as much.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge
pecifically Doug Miller, now an apologist for MSFT strategy) was
rather prompt to comply with terms.
I've no problem with Microsoft advancing free software by way of the
GPL. None whatsoever.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part
fic lists (of which I'm not sure l-d really qualifies)
have a "news" summary that's posted periodically, usually weekly. This
usually covers highlights of recent discussion. Examples include
kernel-traffic and Debian Weekly News. This might be another solution
to the current
* like
the (theoretical) effectiveness of collaborative filtering tools. A
"news" like feature could be implemented by skimming highly-rated items,
comments, and/or threads from general discussion. Scoop's only made
partial progress in this regard to date.
Peace.
-
on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 10:17:14AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:08:08PM -0500, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >
> > > For better or worse, the GPL is a docum
on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:12:48AM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self scripsit:
>
> > There's a crucial distinction: the GPL questions _practice_ and
> > utilizes _law_. The submitted "Poetic License" questions law. What it
> &
nse shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", which in
the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or transfer.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://km
you cannot remain on-charter, I'm requesting you be unsubscribed.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
ections of the OSD speak in terms of "the license" or "the
rights attached to the program". Section 2 is the odd man out.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you unde
- Newly proposed licenses topcally meet the OSD requirements for
deeper consideration.
This does call for a acertain discriminating role in judging
applications.
I believe Rick has stated the situation clearly: you have not
demonstrated your case, and appear to have no practical concerns. I
to download the source
> code. and such a way could be "well-publicized" even though the
> password is not public.
...which negates "means" if the well publicized site isn't such.
IANAL, TINLA.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmse
on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:58:30AM +0200, Chris Gray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
>
> > on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What if, as part of the process of a
on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:53:26AM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > Proposed language:
> >
> > 2. Source Code
> >
> > The license most provide for distribution in source code as
> > well
on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Steve Lhomme ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<...>
> En réponse à "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they
> > > should divide
guidelines, as I
understand, are that exchanges between individuals or units at a
company, for company business, does not constitute a distribution.
Allowing an engineer to take software home to work on it independently
does. Exchange between separate legal units (e.g.: corporations) does.
IANAL
on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Saturday 22 September 2001 11:39 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> > Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend.
> >
> > Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of
y trigger, among
other things, possible copyright violation actions against the employee.
IANAL, TINLA. I'm not a member or spokesman for OSI.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you underst
us? yes. But that is indeed what the page says. Can the
> page be changed?
This is the problem Russel Nelson and I are investigating in our
discussion of section 2 of the OSD.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of &qu
enet.
Again, a gateway would be considered an acceptable compromise. But
you'll find me not visiting a forum much if at all.
And, as Rick mentioned, no offence. Just experience.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
omments
overall. It was a specific point addressed by me in designing the Scoop
(Kuro5hin) moderation schema. Slasdot has a simple filtering system
which *is* useful (Scoop's not yet implemented same).
The fundamental problems of websites are essentially fewer points of
individual
ular as its significance wasn't clear at the time of the
announcement (and also probably speaking to the inherent problems of
web-based fora).
The IP is still active, though last I checked it had little other than a
piquant note to the user.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROT
.)
Looks reasonable. Should be OSD and GPL compliant.
Highlights in reverse order.
#5 is, as noted, a GPL quote.
#4 is essentially a no-op clarification. It doesn't prohibit any
behavior which would otherwise be allowed, and I don't see it
conflicting with the OSD or GPL.
#3 is simil
D. Study these terms and understand
their implications for your work.
> Or are we forced to close down the source and use a M$-alike license?
There is a wide range of licensing options available, "Microsoft" and
"OSD" are not the only two points on the spectrum, nor are the
Artistic License, though the latter is an ambiguous (and apparently
intentionally so) document. I haven't looked at the Clarified AL
lately.
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you
missed something obvious?
Yes.
IANAL, TINLA, !OSI member.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:48:26PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self scripsit:
>
> > It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
> > modifications and derived works must be freely distributable,
>
> The MIT and BSD licen
ause his code is of quite high quality. However, he's most
recently got himself PNG status with OpenBSD over licensing.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of
restrictions
> placed on it, and a combined work must comply with all preceding
> licenses, then any combination of GPL+[other license] must have the
> same terms as the GPL. So it may as well *be* the GPL for all
> practical purposes.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL
implicitly any GNU software license
> is Open Source...
Wrong.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
I (which a class essentially is) is that it's largely functional. To
this extent, the functional characteristics of a class, and their
inheritence in a derived class, would not be governed by copyright.
Specific, non-functional, expression from the parent class would be
subject to copyright
erves to TOG the right to claim
"certified" results (with possible licensing of the mark to certified
testing centers).
The alternative otherwise is to be satisfied with having a "viewable
source" license, but not qualifying as OSI Open Source.
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
--
Kars
Better to go with the source
form than the compiled form, where appropriate. Likewise proscriptions
against obfuscated or machine-generated sources.
This is consistent with traditions of copyright filing with the US
Library of Congress, which identifies "best works" and preferred forms
for
on Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 10:18:09PM -0400, Ned Lilly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
>
> > Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're
> > not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
