Larry,
> Perhaps you're still confusing terms. Those sections of the QPL don't
> require that "copyrights of modifications be passed to the copyright
> holder." They are simply grant-back licenses, albeit a little awkwardly
> phrased.
--> I still maintain that BXAPL section 12.5 is a nearly exac
Larry,
See below for comments. Please find my responses inserted in the
existing text.
Abe.
> > > > B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder.
> > > > Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL.
> > >
> > > The requirement that downstream licensees who modify
> > > B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder.
> > > Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL.
> >
> > The requirement that downstream licensees who modify the software
> > assign their copyrights to the licensor is entirely
> unacceptable. Why
> > do you
Larry,
thanks for your reply. Please find my responses inserted.
Abe.
> > A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software
> > and derivatives. I have found no mention of this
> > distinction in your
> > OSL.
>
> The OSL doesn't need to distinguish among these becaus
Abe Kornelis wrote:
> However, it does not distinguish between software and
> programming tools, nor does it distinguish between derived
> software and what we have termed 'dependent software', which
> is termed in the LGPL as 'software that uses the Software'.
>
> In the rationale for the BXAP
covers 50% of our requirements.
So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license.
Kind Regards, Abe.
==
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Abe Kornelis' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:48 PM
S
Hello all,
a few months ago, Steve Lhomme and I have requested
approval for the BXAPL license. That request was a
bit too rash.
We received various comments and have taken our time
to create a new and improved version of the BXAPL.
For an overview of the differences with the preceding
version, pl
7 matches
Mail list logo
