Ken Arromdee scripsit:
4.3 - Commercial distribution of the Software requires a
trademark license agreement and you may be required to
pay. Using the Software within a corporation or entity is not
considered commercial distribution. This license does not grant
I have not had time to do this myself but it is probably a reasonable idea.
Luis
On Sep 19, 2013 7:40 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
It seems that at least a few OSI directors seem think System 76's
BeanBooks Public License may be at least a bit problematic under OSD
(or, at least,
On 9/18/2013 4:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, John Cowan wrote:
Sec. 4.3 strikes me as actually conceptually somewhat interesting,
inasmuch as many commercial lawyers have argued that this type of
clause is often implicit in software that contains a protect trademark
embedded
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:50:29 -0700
Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote:
I just wanted to raise this thread again; I'm interested in
discussion/comment from others but have had only the barest time to
skim.
(Same here.)
Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into
the
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:06:31 -0400
Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
Submit is susceptible to a broad reading that would give System76 a
privileged license relative to everyone else (somewhat like the old
NPL).
Re-reading this, I may not have been sufficiently clear. Section
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, John Cowan wrote:
Sec. 4.3 strikes me as actually conceptually somewhat interesting,
inasmuch as many commercial lawyers have argued that this type of
clause is often implicit in software that contains a protect trademark
embedded in the software and not removed by a
I just wanted to raise this thread again; I'm interested in
discussion/comment from others but have had only the barest time to
skim.
Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into
the license. Not non-free/open, per se, at least at first glance -
just... odd?
Sec. 4.3
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote:
Sec. 4.3 strikes me as actually conceptually somewhat interesting,
inasmuch as many commercial lawyers have argued that this type of
clause is often implicit in software that contains a protect trademark
embedded in the software
Luis Villa scripsit:
Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into
the license. Not non-free/open, per se, at least at first glance -
just... odd?
Section 3 as a whole is a CLA; it only applies to you if you make
a Contribution, which requires that you submit your work
A colleague of mine asked for my comment on the following license:
https://beansbooks.com/home/opensource (included in full text below for
the archives). It's reminiscent of the Yahoo! Public License and Zimbra
Public License.
I notice that it seems that the Zimbra Public License and Yahoo! are
10 matches
Mail list logo
