Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid
people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without
paying the fee.
I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and
not bound to any
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and
not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys.
Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software
would run without any license
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:47:04 -0800
I hope the open source community can help
encourage creative thinking in licensing, just as it encourages creative
thinking in software development, without settling too early on a
"standard."
I
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:49:11 -0800
On Saturday 18 November 2000 04:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're aquainted with how a linker works? It's the linking of object
code plus libraries which creates the machine-code executable. For
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:07 -0500
From: Bryan George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The LGPL is basically designed to support shared libraries. If you
can distribute your package as a shared library, then the LGPL does
not put any restrictions on the program which uses the library.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:52:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Bryan George wrote:
The LGPL puts restrictions on P when it is linked with L. But so
what? That linking will only happen on the end user system. ...
But the LGPL puts
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
I called Peter Deutsch to discuss this yesterday, but found that he has
dropped off of the OSI board. This wasn't announced. Perhaps I am looking
in the wrong place, but I can't find the OSI board
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:04:38 +0100
From: cszigetv [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the end of this mail is part of an article from OS Opinion about
TurboLinux' delays the distribution of their modified code, while (as I
assume) they distribute binaries.
I assume they are distributing the
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:45:47 -0500
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
where is it?
The flaw is in treating the law as though it were a computer program.
The law considers intent, and ignores technical
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:39:23 -0500
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
the copyright does in fact become
I see a lot of people asking on this list why their licenses are not
being approved.
I think I've been on this list since it was created--in some small way
I may have encouraged its creation-- but I don't actually remember
seeing any license receive official OSI approval. I may well have
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:09:44 +
From: Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author".
In English this is often called ``moral rights.'' Moral rights do not
exist in English and American law. They exist in French law, and
presumably
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:49:37 -0500
From: Alex Nicolaou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't mean that the GPL restricts use; it doesn't. But it restricts
modifications to those which do not violate the license, and the license
requires the banner which appears during gdb's startup that
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:43:04 -0400
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
One easy and relatively inexpensive way to publish an algorithm with a
legally verifiable date in the U.S. is to register it with the
U.S. copyright office. You can send them
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
1) I don't want to spend a lot of money or do a lot of work.
(i.e. I don't want to go through the hassle of applying for a
patent myself.)
2) I don't
Date:Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform
3. and the
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:25 -0700
From: Wilfredo Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its
| allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a
| better license?
Most certainly. For starters, it should
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
