Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-17 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Me: > > Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any > > "must" in your 3. > > Abe: > --> I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your > modifications private. The base line is: e

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-16 Thread Chris F Clark
Me: > Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any > "must" in your 3. Abe: --> I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your modifications private. The base line is: either keep them private *or* distribute to the public. Nothing in between. I'm

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-16 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Must publish vs. must supply > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote (editted > silight by me in []: > >

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-13 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I would offer the recipients of my software > > three choices: > >1) make no modifications. > >2) make mods and keep them private > >3) make mods and publish to the public, either by publishing > >

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-13 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Any group should be able to share > modifications among themselves without the outside world (including the > original author) being aware of it. --> I do not regard open-source as a one-sided mirror - if it is to work at al

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-13 Thread Chris F Clark
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote (editted silight by me in []: >I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff > already, I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software > three choices: >1) make no modifications. >2) make mods and

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread David Johnson
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote: >I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff > already, I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software > three choices: >1) make no modifications. >2) make mods and keep them private >3)

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread Mark Rafn
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote: > --> You raise a touchy point. I'll give you two replies. >1) Any solution that I would provide would equally apply to >terrorist groups. Replace the Chinese dissidents with >Al-Qaeda members - their situations are comparabl

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Chris F Clark scripsit: > > > Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations > > (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms. > > The same applies to individuals. Do you want to

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the > license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal > precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors. > Restricting the right

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the > > license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal > > precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors. > > Restricting t

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-12 Thread Abe Kornelis
- Original Message - From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The biggest point in this whole discussion is this simple > > fact: if I do not insert either a must-publish or a must-supply > > clause in my license they can (and probably will) claim that > > their sou

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread David Johnson
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 09:59 pm, Chris F Clark wrote: > David Johnson writes: > > The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The > > boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private > > and public spheres. > > A reasonable distinction. This brings up the que

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread Chris F Clark
David Johnson writes: > The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The > boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private and > public spheres. A reasonable distinction. This brings up the question of where the private and public spheres end. Personally,

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread David Johnson
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:43 am, Chris F Clark wrote: > > Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations > (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their > freedoms. I find that a curious point, since as I understand it, the > original impetus for the movement

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread Chris F Clark
In reply to: > Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations > (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms. John Cowan wrote: > The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be required to publish > every little dink you make to GPLed software?

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread John Cowan
Chris F Clark scripsit: > Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations > (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms. The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be required to publish every little dink you make to GPLed software? How often?

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-11 Thread Chris F Clark
David Johnson wrote: > Since the FSF rejects the APSL as being non-free, for the reasons that > it regulates how the software may be used internally via a > "must-publish" clause, then I'm pretty sure that you've got your terms > backwards. I stand corrected. I did not consider the additional

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-10 Thread David Johnson
On Monday 10 March 2003 08:04 pm, Chris F Clark wrote: > Actually, as I understand it a must-xxx clause is closer to the > definition of free-software than to "open source". So let me get this straight. Mandatory requirements included for pragmatic reasons are more aligned with Free Software tha

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-10 Thread Chris F Clark
In replying to: > Is a must-supply (to copyright holder, that is) clause > preferable over a must-publish (to the public, that is) > clause, or vice versa. Mark Rafn wrote: > Neither qualify as acceptible in my book. I'd be interested to hear > from OSI board members whether t

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-10 Thread Mark Rafn
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote: > --> It's always fine to know people use my software to their > advantage - but I have to make a living, too. To put it > bluntly: I cannot afford to give my software away without > any restriction, however noble that might seem to some.

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-10 Thread Abe Kornelis
Mark, Chris and I appear to share a point of view. Thanks Chris, for your reaction. I feel strengthened by it. Which license do you currently use for open-source distribution? - Original Message - From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Chris F Clark wrote: > > > I wou

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-09 Thread John Cowan
Chris F Clark scripsit: > As a vendor of > proprietary software, I would like an open source license that > prevents or atleast substantially "discourages" commercial users who > wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use > it when developing open source applications. >

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-09 Thread Mark Rafn
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Chris F Clark wrote: > I would like an open source license that > prevents or atleast substantially "discourages" commercial users who > wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use > it when developing open source applications. [I'm relatively new to

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-09 Thread Chris F Clark
Abe Kornellis is not alone in desiring an open source license like this for precisely the dual license structure. As a vendor of proprietary software, I would like an open source license that prevents or atleast substantially "discourages" commercial users who wish to use it for closed source appl

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-09 Thread Abe Kornelis
> Abe Kornelis scripsit: > > > Not wanting to compromise > > the relation with their software supplier being one fairly > > good reason, habitual secretiveness another one, > > and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable > > by their own customers as yet a

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-07 Thread John Cowan
Abe Kornelis scripsit: > Not wanting to compromise > the relation with their software supplier being one fairly > good reason, habitual secretiveness another one, > and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable > by their own customers as yet another (very

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-07 Thread Abe Kornelis
John, thanks again, and once more please find my comments inserted below. - Original Message - From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Abe Kornelis scripsit: > > > > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: > > > you must supply changes in source form to peop

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-06 Thread John Cowan
Abe Kornelis scripsit: > > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: > > you must supply changes in source form to people who have received > > the changed version. If the changed version is published to all, the > > changes must also be; if the changed version is dis

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-06 Thread Abe Kornelis
Bennett, thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted in between your tecxt. - Original Message - From: Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2003-03-05T14:34:23 John Cowan: > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: > you must supply changes in source

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-06 Thread Abe Kornelis
John, thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted in between your text. - Original Message - From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm) > > currently has both - which is definitely an overkill, > > even though it grants u

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-05 Thread Bennett Todd
2003-03-05T14:34:23 John Cowan: > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: > you must supply changes in source form to people who have received > the changed version. If the changed version is published to all, the > changes must also be; if the changed version is dis

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-05 Thread John Cowan
Abe Kornelis scripsit: > The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm) > currently has both - which is definitely an overkill, > even though it grants users the right to keep their > modifications entirely private. That is: one either keeps > all modifications private, or they are publi

Must publish vs. must supply

2003-03-05 Thread Abe Kornelis
Hello all, Some licenses have a 'must publish' requirements, others have a 'must supply' requirement, and yet others have neither. The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm) currently has both - which is definitely an overkill, even though it grants users the right to keep their mo