Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense
to people who don't want to read the OSD in the
spirit intended. One has to find one's own.
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under
the MIT license, and the distro is OSI certifiable,
begin Greg London quotation:
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and
the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone
else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only penalty
is that they lose OSI certification.
_Licences_ are
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal
requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast
into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done
by people with actual experience with the
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote:
The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several
popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by
I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free
software community was an open, friendly place
En réponse à Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Once again, as I wrote :
Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ?
Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the
contribution
to my collection.
In the meantime, since you say your
Who can tell me which books about free software movement
and open source movement are popular in America, or worth
reading for those who are interested in these movements?
Could you list about five books? Thanks.
èbj(ër¢êßç²j(ruÚÞ²ÆÛiÿù\ ¢ibqéìyجrë,j·!÷¢±«a¶ÚýÊò
Hello y'all.
I have some time on my hands today so I thought I'd solicit some feedback for
the *beta* forums site I've setup for OSI that Russell had mentioned to the
list this past weekend.
*Its only BETA to test if we all like the mechanism.
The idea is to see if:
1) It keeps comments
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and
the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone
else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only penalty
is that they lose OSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who can tell me which books about free software movement
and open source movement are popular in America, or worth
reading for those who are interested in these movements?
Could you list about five books? Thanks.
I can tell you 1 offhand. Open Sources by O'Reilly.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:55:36AM -0400, Greg London wrote:
With 26 licenses, some of them extremely long,
most people will not read all of them,nor understand
the implications of them. I skipped over to the
OSD, read that, and assumed that I could pick
any approved license, and the OSD
begin Greg London quotation:
_Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in
accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing).
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html
The OSI Certified mark applies to software, not to licenses.
Was
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
- Apple's Darwin project is under the APSL, which remains quite
controversial.
Well, it is and it isn't. I examined this in at least a little bit of
detail when Evan Liebovitch was castigating Apple for allegedly leeching
(I paraphrase) off the BSDs.
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not
alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL
compatible (and also a few minor changes).
Splendid. We will await with interest the cessation of rhetoric and
submission of
This is the problem Russel Nelson and I are investigating in our
discussion of section 2 of the OSD.
Right. I didn't see you discuss that the wording for appplying
the mark needs to be on the other web page, not just in OSD #2.
(And maybe if the change was there, you would not even have to
14 matches
Mail list logo
