On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 19:09, John Cowan wrote:
David Presotto scripsit:
As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if
source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive
license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been busy.
I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license:
4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction
with any software license that
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Brian Behlendorf writes:
It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that
each user pay the copyright holder for use.
You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay
the copyright holder when they get
Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to Brian Behlendorf:
... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion
that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be
paying the authors of that software ...
What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are
According to Brian Behlendorf:
... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion
that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be
paying the authors of that software ...
What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are you suggesting
that charity should
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in
(that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a
product.
So? Let's say that somebody wanted to donate a module back to you,
but they wanted to
I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex:
the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the
discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh*
On the contrary, the words in parentheses only clarify the previous
words. Yes, you have been very careful
Sean Chittenden writes:
Why should the GPL be any different to you?
A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an unusable
form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems from the
terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code in products.
Exactly my
Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and
use it in proprietary products.
But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it?
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
ensure that any work on the modules that they
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and someone writes a module for that language, the least
that the module author can do is release the module under
business friendly terms. If someone writes a module for my lang
but releases it under the
If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core,
then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the
businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL
prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making
those changes available to other
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product
are changes that are available only under the GPL.
Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a
proprietary product are changes that are only available to the
authors of the proprietary product.
Why should the GPL be any different to you?
A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an
unusable form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems
from the terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code
in products.
Exactly my point. It's not
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that
you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a
proprietary license. It isn't.
Ah, but it is though. Hear me out:
A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that
you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a
proprietary license. It isn't.
Ah, but it is though. Hear me out:
A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to stand behind
it to work on software
Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI
Board) are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for
only permitting licenses that GPL compatible.
Not at all.
I think your license is open source, and I said so.
My apologies. I've gotten so many responses
'tips hat to a BSDer and [snips]
Just to make sure things are clear: I don't think anyone on this
list would argue that OSI should beonly permitting licenses that
GPL compatible. In fact, the OSI has approved numerous licenses
that are GPL-incompatible. Further, any of us come from the BSD
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Speaking of malintent, it may be argued that the OSSAL encourages a
corporation with a large amount of financial backing to issue a
large upgrade to their or someone else's open source product and
issuing it as closed source software for sale,
Quoting Ernie Prabhakar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In fact, I think I've noticed several distinct criticisms of your
license, which its important not to confuse:
A. It is morally wrong to create a license incompatible with the GPL
That would be a claim that, if actually expressed here (and I
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board)
are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only
permitting licenses that GPL compatible.
I can't think of a way to say this that's not blunt, so what the hell:
On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has
said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed
under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed
under this license.'' Then
21 matches
Mail list logo
