Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
That's what the definitions say.
The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
thusly
Item 16: I could be completely wrong here, but a) seems to effectively
create a situation where patent holders would pay others for use of
their own patents, while all third parties would be allowed to continue
infringement - with the only alternative being to withdraw the claim. Is
this
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
Yeah. We tried to simplify as possible. But lawyer language is not
common language. Anyway it seems that you found some bad ones. (none of
Abe or me are lawyers
En réponse à Forrest J Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Free Software Foundation Announces Support of the Affero General
Public License, the First Copyleft License for Web Services
http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
(NOTE: The FSF suggests comments to them. I CC'ed them,
Here is another interresting article about the history of software patents.
There is also some examples of what can't be copyrighted. An MSDOS batch file
cannot be copyrighted for example !
http://www.bustpatents.com/aharonian/softcopy.htm
--
license-discuss archive is at
http://www.networkcomputing.com/1222/1222ws1.html
A very good sum up of the current (blurry) situation on licenses. (especially
for developpers getting lost)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Quoting Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're
not the best form of a work. Specifically, they're not the
preferred
for for making modifications to the work. Better to go with the
source
form than the compiled form, where
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
|
| Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee
En réponse à Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Once again, as I wrote :
Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ?
Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the
contribution
to my collection.
In the meantime, since you say your
| Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce
improvements!
| Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of?
| Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences.
| Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more
| Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's
| just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have
| avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none
| of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of
|
| As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep
hearing
| about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or
| not? Yes or no?
That means that most of them won't take the time to read these
Other/Proprietary licenses. So basically they will be
I think it's a real pity, because it slows down a lot of effort in the
Open-Source direction/community. The OSI approval has become a guarantee for
developpers and companies who want to use open-source softwares. And so
they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not letting a better
| begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
|
| First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses.
|
| Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern.
Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the
opensource.org website.
| Well, please do talk to us about
| Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the
| opensource.org website.
|
| Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list
| archives and report back.
I will. But if you followed the thread I replied to a message that
complained about a license
| I would not advise confusing commerce and commercial. The Commerce
| Clause refers to an entirely different matter than what Steve asked. Sure,
| defining non-commercial is not easy, but it's done all the time because
| laws require the distinction to be made. For example, a trademark
|
As I told you privately, your idea of If the terms and conditions of this
license are not acceptable to you, you must obtain a different license for
the software is very good IMHO.
It's the key to dual-licensing. And I haven't seen any mention of
dual-licensing on opensource.org :(
That's what
Hi,
I'm a bit new to software licenses.
I've investigated through all the usual OSI-approved software licenses and I
still haven't found what I'm looking for.
I thought the QPL would fit, but after reading it carefully, it doesn't seem
like.
What I'm looking for is a Free Software license,
18 matches
Mail list logo
