Misunderstanding of the basics?

Hi Ben, thanks for the open :) reply... Ben Tilly wrote: My first comment is that we don't need an additional license. Mine would be: we finally need one that works (even in such small and unimportant countries like Germany)... My second comment is that if this meets the open source

Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: But if you look at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring. Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be

Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?

begin Ralf Schwoebel quotation: This is why I am so irritated by that discussion... Most of the things mentioned in the earlier mails where against definitions you find in the other licenses as well. Hello? No, sir. You were referred (relevantly and appropriately) to particular points of

RE: Misunderstanding of the basics?

From: Ralf Schwoebel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL says you MUST, I can not see why the OSI should not accept that? [DJW:] In typical compliance language, SHALL is the most strict level of compliance. I'd normally treat

Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?

Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: But if you look at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring. Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your license does not allow

Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?

Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, thanks for the open :) reply... I just want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on either part here. Ben Tilly wrote: My first comment is that we don't need an additional license. Mine would be: we finally need one that works