On Tuesday 12 March 2002 8:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
The only point in this license seems to be the GPL
incompatibility. And you then blame the GPL? If the
GPL is guilty of anything, then you are guilty of
the same.
So this license creates walls in open source code
and divides the
At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be
deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open
source license.
No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a free for both open and
closed source use body of code can't be turned
No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a free for both open and
closed source use body of code can't be turned into a free for open
source use only body of code. I mention GPL-taint because the GPL is
the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive
license.
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license
(eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is
incorporated under the same license. This merely formalizes that.
I may regret getting suckered into this
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
As I said, there is a *tradition*. Traditions aren't always followed,
and the last thing I want is for a project to fork into two incompatible
versions based on their licenses.
If you have mindshare, then the existence of other people's forks
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 1:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be
deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open
source license.
No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a free for
Rick Moen scripsit:
What you've written is, at best, a solution in search of a problem.
(My view; yours for a small royalty fee and disclaimer of
reverse-engineering rights.)
The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license
is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license
is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a desire to release software
under the license; what we need to do is to determine whether there is
any reason why such software cannot be
phil hunt scripsit:
I also notice your word taint used to describe the GPL. Here, you
seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source license,
and by implication, people who choose to write software under this
license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a
Rick Moen scripsit:
I'm fully aware of having digressed, and hope to be forgiven, some day.
With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond
digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond
digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives.
Here, I'm quite certain you're confusing me with another poster.
--
Cheers, We write preciselyWe say
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
license?
Colin Percival
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely horrible
motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm reporting to the
Illuminati, and get back to discussing the license?
Well said.
I thought the second-guessing of your motives
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
license?
Well, if you had submitted the license without the manifesto attached,
people would have considered the
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 7:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
license?
You are not interested in defending your motives;
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 4:07 am, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source,
My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it
isn't.
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this
mailing list and added the line:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
No, I'm not.
To start with, the LGPL only applies to
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of
further derivative works.
This
At 15:56 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries.
That's not true, you can license any code with it.
Allow me to rephrase: The LGPL is intended for application
to libraries. (And
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name). It is
not a BSD license because it does NOT always permit
improvements to be used wherever they will help,
without idealogical or metallic constraint. For
Colin Percival scripsit:
I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you
some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants
you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly
pointed out that the three sections cover different actions,
and obviously
OSD-related issues that I see
1. Someone already pointed out the OSD #1 issue. If
the license doesn't explicitly permit selling copies,
then copyright law reserves the right to the author.
2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license
fails to state that the terms apply to
I didn't define Definitions, either. ducks
I have no legal training,
No legal training required for discussion here. And
according to Larry, if you have legal training, there
is some discussion you should not be doing here. :-)
but I thought it would be clear that
Modification and
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 3:53 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
is distributed must
--- Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name
Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a
BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license.
Then please
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
I submit for your consideration the BSD Protection License, as found
at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html
(A plaintext version can be found by s/html/txt/ on the URL.)
Feel free to
Colin Percival scripsit:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
By no means. It seems to me a very innovative license: the
software can be used either in proprietary products, or in
free software *which is also gratuit*. I think it would
require a clause which
At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this
mailing list and added the line:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
No, I'm not.
To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries. The license I am
proposing applies to any code (and in
Colin Percival scripsit:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
By no means. It seems to me a very innovative license: the
software can be used either in proprietary products, or in
free software *which is also gratuit*. I think it would
require a clause which
On Monday 11 March 2002 10:38 am, Colin Percival wrote:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
I submit for your consideration the BSD Protection License, as found
at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html
(A plaintext version can
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name). It is
not a BSD license because it does NOT always permit
improvements to be used wherever they will help,
without idealogical or metallic constraint. For
example, it does not allow the use of such
31 matches
Mail list logo
