On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:38 pm, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to "Your
> > Deployed Modifications."
> >
> > Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary
> > only depl
On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:34 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> David Johnson wrote...
>
> > On Wednesday 13 March 2002 10:40 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > > I just want to point out that there is one license
> > > already approved which has a "public performance"
> > > clause like B
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have never removed OSI approval for any license,
APSL 1.0
> so I'm sure that
> the GPL is in no danger of not being an Open Source license.
You are the tail trying to wag the dog, Russ.
If the OSD can't accept the GPLv2, then the only plausible
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OSD modification regarding what license can require of
> > The OSI-approved the W3C license which has a requirement of
> > displaying a notice to users.
>
> If it
From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to "Your
> Deployed Modifications."
>
> Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary only
> deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a derivative w
David Johnson wrote...
> On Wednesday 13 March 2002 10:40 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > I just want to point out that there is one license
> > already approved which has a "public performance"
> > clause like Bruce gave as an example..
> >
> > The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
> Such clauses are not clear OSD conflicts because there are already
> OSI approved licenses with similar clauses.
>
> The GPL 2c requires a run-time note under certain conditions.
Hrm. I think that the GPL was simply acclaimed as an Open Source
license. I
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
I don't find DJB's claim that private modifications are allowed
credible. His quotation from the CONTU Final Report is misleadingly
selective. A fuller quotation states:
Thus a right to make those changes necessary to enable
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > Copyright law already gives them permission to make derivative works.
>
> That is not so.
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
> > They just can't *copy* them. But they don't want to, and aren't going to.
>
> The term "copyright" is not
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 10:40 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> I just want to point out that there is one license
> already approved which has a "public performance"
> clause like Bruce gave as an example..
>
> The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
> publication of s
I.R.Maturana scripsit:
> This is a good point, but it need to be developed.
> Let me add that once permission is given, Copyright Law can give
> to "second" author of derivative work the SAME rights than
> the "first" author, on their respective versions.
Correct. This is a point that is often
On Thursday 14 March 2002 03:20 am, John Cowan wrote:
> > I don't think that's relevant. Web Services will, by definition, be
> > served this way. That they may not be available (or viable) to some is a
> > different issue.
>
> My point was that distribution will not become irrelevant just becaus
David Christensen scripsit:
> 1. Is the LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. MICROMONITOR SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE
> AGREEMENT approved by the Open Source Initiative?
Looks like the MPL to me.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. Is the LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. MICROMONITOR SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE
AGREEMENT approved by the Open Source Initiative?
2. Is there a list of licenses that have been rejected (with reasons
why)?
David
--
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
MICROMONITOR SOFTWARE PUBLIC LI
RN>> Copyright law already gives them permission to make derivative works.
JN> That is not so. One may not make a derivative work without
> the permission
> of the copyright holder. For example, one may not translate a book
> into a different language without such permission, even an unpublishe
Emiliano writes:
> A: accepts license, tells B:
> 1. download tarball
> 2. do "tr a-mn-z n-za-m
> Has A violated the license? That would seem weird, because it pertains
> clear written instructions (even if those instructions are in fact a
> shell script). And since B didn't agree to anyth
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
> You mean "Specht et al v Netscape".
Yes. I forgot which name came first.
> In that decision, there
> is a footnote [8] on page 10 which states, (in part)
>The apparent failure of consideration on Plaintiff's side --
>put simply, Plaintiff's obtainin
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> Copyright law already gives them permission to make derivative works.
That is not so. One may not make a derivative work without the permission
of the copyright holder. For example, one may not translate a book
into a different language without such permission, even
Russell Nelson wrote, in part.
> Richard Stallman writes:
> > I think these issues should be judged by the substance of the
> > requirement rather than by the legal hook which is used to impose it.
> > For instance, a requirement to make source available to users is
> > substantively a requir
Russell Nelson wrote:
> You can certainly do this, but you'll need some component which is not
> free or open source software. Something like this:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Copyright 2002, Emiliano. All rights reserved.
>
> cat < This is a license. If you unpack the enclosed tarball, you have
> agree
We are helping a third party to incorporate our proposed solution to
the ASP problem in its own modified GPL for release very shortly
(probably within days). Legal work is complete and only some
public information documents are not yet final. Use in an
FSF-approved third-party license will be fo
Richard Stallman writes:
> I think these issues should be judged by the substance of the
> requirement rather than by the legal hook which is used to impose it.
> For instance, a requirement to make source available to users is
> substantively a requirement of distribution rather than a restri
[Earlier reply seems to have been lost. So I rewrote
it and am sending it again.]
John Cowan wrote:
> Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
>
> > It was my understanding that it can be hard to convince a court
> > that a gratis download binds the recipient to a contract/license.
> > (Because there
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
>
> > It was my understanding that it can be hard to convince a court
> > that a gratis download binds the recipient to a contract/license.
> > (Because there is no consideration.)
>
> Not so much consideration a
On Thursday 14 March 2002 12:20, you wrote:
> > > I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
> > > mile) becomes "too cheap to meter".
> >
> > I don't think that's relevant. Web Services will, by definition, be
> > served this way. That they may not be available (or v
John Cowan writes:
> It's not as bad as that: copyright law lets you do the things you
> want.
No it doesn't:
> 2) You may make derivative works from the software,
Copyright law already gives them permission to make derivative works.
They just can't *copy* them. But they don't want to, and
Emiliano writes:
> I see the issues this brings, but my immediate choices are
>
> 1) keep the source closed, or
> 2) release the sources under conditions that give the users of the
> service that my software will provide the same freedoms as the entity
> running that software for them has.
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think these issues should be judged by the substance of the
> requirement rather than by the legal hook which is used to impose it.
> For instance, a requirement to make source available to users is
> substantively a requirement of distribution rather than a restriction
I think these issues should be judged by the substance of the
requirement rather than by the legal hook which is used to impose it.
For instance, a requirement to make source available to users is
substantively a requirement of distribution rather than a restriction
on use.
At present we are plan
John Cowan wrote:
> It's not as bad as that: copyright law lets you do the things you
> want. You may or may not pass the OSD, though.
I'd prefer to have it pass the OSD. I prefer more, though, to release
the sources. Releasing the sources is bound by some restrictions that
may or may not becom
Emiliano scripsit:
> 1) keep the source closed, or
> 2) release the sources under conditions that give the users of the
> service that my software will provide the same freedoms as the entity
> running that software for them has.
>
> I'm not up to speed on copyright law, but my choices here are
Emiliano scripsit:
> > > Well, I could answer that in two, conflicting ways. If distribution becomes
> > > irrelevant, the spirit of the GPL in that respect is obsolete, isn't it?
> >
> > I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
> > mile) becomes "too cheap to meter
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
> It was my understanding that it can be hard to convince a court
> that a gratis download binds the recipient to a contract/license.
> (Because there is no consideration.)
Not so much consideration as acceptance. That's what _Netscape_
established; just putt
33 matches
Mail list logo
