for my theory).
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
ry version would not in fact be distributed "under" an
OSD-compliant license; however the business could advertise the source
version as "OSI Certified", assuming that the license for the source
code version were on the OSI-approved list.
Or at least that's how I read it...
prevent
me from continuing to use its certification mark to promote my software?
Clearly my behavior would violate the Open Source Definition. But from
my reading of the OSI certification requirements, compliance with the
OSD is not a condition of using the OSI mark. It seems to me that, at
least at present, the only real requirement for use of the mark is that
I use as my license one of the licenses on the list which OSI has
helpfully provided.
Comments?
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
o a software product can release
that product under the GPL. Use of the GPL does not affect their status
as copyright holder.
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
ng of copyleft is
directly tied to the issue of linking, it's that the FSF uses the issue
of linking to try and introduce a concept of the relative "strength" of
copyleft as embodied in different license.
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
it did in
1996, then its revenue would have been about $325M higher than the
actual figure; as it was Netscape lost $115M in 1997.
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
s of the effect on Microsoft's competitors.
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
ld greatly reduce the perceived need
for dual licensing, at least for new projects.
Frank
--
Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
8 matches
Mail list logo
