On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 03:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
In general, good will from the projects at issue is a factor that
should not be underestimated and being a good citizen means ideally
making sure they are ok with
Chris Travers scripsit:
Now, if linking implies derivation, then isn't the software (and by
extension *all* Windows software) derivative of Windows? If that's the
case then doesn't every developer of Windows software need Microsoft's
permission to distribute such software? I don't think so.
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Well, here's a list of OSI-approved licenses that Tom Callaway and I
judged non-FOSS when we examined them (though I haven't looked at
these in a few years). (This does not include the Artistic License 1.0
and certain of its OSI-approved derivatives,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
By the way, note that the OSI is using the SPDX license abbreviations
for URLs now (though with compatibility redirects of course). So the
the above list would now be:
Adaptive Public License
Luis Villa scripsit:
Is there a full/formal list of those abbreviations somewhere? Would be
useful to be able to point at. Thanks!
http://www.spdx.org/licenses/
--
Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring co...@ccil.org
by moving the Unix.
Karl Fogel scripsit:
Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0
This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first
brought up, and it still is.
Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0
The issue here seems to be
John, thanks -- having this analysis helps a lot. That language in the
Frameworx license is very odd; I wonder what the backstory is. I
can't see now what the motivation might have been.
-K
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
Adaptive Public License
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 03:50:51PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
Without making any assertions as to the open-sourceness or lack thereof
of CPAL-1.0, I'm surprised to see it absent from this list -- whenever
the subject of mis-approval comes up, that one's usually mentioned, for
reasons discussed
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that
anyway, and to publish the rationale. In at least one case (OCLC-2.0)
at least one issue involved restrictions on
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:28:51PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Ricoh Source Code Public License
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL
This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the
obnoxious BSD advertising clause:
5.1. Advertising Materials.
All
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:50:53PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that
anyway, and to publish the rationale. In at least
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:50:53PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that
anyway,
Richard Fontana scripsit:
The OSD may not be fully clear on this, but I take it as fundamental
that FOSS licenses should not place any restriction on prices charged
for distribution, other than with respect to source code that is
required to be provided when distributing binaries.
That seems
13 matches
Mail list logo
