On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A philosophical point first: I believe that attempting standards
enforcement through copyright licensing is fundamentally broken. We've
seen this tried several times, with the Artistic (control over "Perl"
name), and SCSL licenses, the results
Sorry if this seems pedantic...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Convergence. Despite some degree of internal conflict, the final
nail was really the result of independent external resolution of
many of the issues we had sought to address. As of the last meeting
News flash: A _lot_ of technical people are using Word docs and
PowerPoint presentations these days - Linux/VMWare is my weapon of
choice, but there are others.
Bryan
Ben Tilly wrote:
Jorg Janke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to raise three issues:
a) License issues
b) Compiere
The comment was ironic, to make that self-same point. We can't look at
the letter of it, but at the feelings of the community which supports
the concept... and the irony is directed at IntraDAT...
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew J Bromage" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G'day all.
On
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
Dave,
A note of clarification.
Although I need not speak for OSI, I am confident that they would say that
they are NOT acting as legal counsel for the drafters of the submitted
licenses. Instead, the idea of getting a license approved or of discussing
the licenses on this list is more about
Bryan George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
News flash: A _lot_ of technical people are using Word docs and
PowerPoint presentations these days - Linux/VMWare is my weapon of
choice, but there are others.
News flash: Doing so is still a good way to guarantee
that a lot of other technical people will
on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:30:15AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry if this seems pedantic...
Not at all, quite appreciated. I have trouble keeping up with
everything and appreciate the watchful eye.
Thanks.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
Hi Larry,
Of course we're going to run this by our attorneys but I was trying to see if
there's a 'standard' practice for this that the open source community follows
(btw, I too have a law degree).
Bart
"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:
I want to discourage license-discuss participants from
on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:23:00PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Decrem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: trademarked logos and GPL
Title: RE: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
Hi Larry,
Here some ideas and suggestions:
- If someone send s mail to license-approval, just acknowledge the mail, say it might take 6 months and that they should evaluate using the license in the meantime. This sets
On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote:
Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots =
document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks!
Sigh...
I don't have MS Office, and I am not about to pay for it. This has nothing to
do with bigotry, but everything
begin Manfred Schmid quotation:
We see that emotions have gone high.
I see that you _continue_ declining to address the subject at hand.
Which is evaluating whether specific licences are OSD-compliant or not.
Instead, you digress onto business models, alleged deficiencies in the
OSD, and a
13 matches
Mail list logo
