John McEntire pointed out to me earlier today that I need to close on
the questions I raised about the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source
License. As I said in my earlier email, I believe that license is
consistent with the OSD and that it warrants approval by the OSI board
of directors. I
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:52 PM
To: John Taylor McEntire
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License
John,
I really appreciate the clear focus you presented in your rationale for
your UoI/NCSA Open Source License. There are good reasons to merge the
BSD
rather than being merely redundant.
John McEntire
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:40 PM
To: John Taylor McEntire; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License
On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:26 pm, John
John,
I really appreciate the clear focus you presented in your rationale for
your UoI/NCSA Open Source License. There are good reasons to merge the
BSD and MIT licenses into a clearer, but still short, open source
license -- and you stated those reasons well. I believe your license
John Taylor McEntire scripsit:
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
I think this license is plainly open source and should be fast tracked.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne
.
Included as text to this e-mail is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open
Source License for your review and consideration as an approved OSI open
source license. This license is a combination of the already-approved
MIT and BSD licenses. However, the combined text is more explicit
regarding the granted
On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:26 pm, John Taylor McEntire wrote:
Included as text to this e-mail is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open
Source License for your review and consideration as an approved OSI open
source license. This license is a combination of the already-approved
MIT and BSD
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Gray
Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License
I don't think they need to create a separate ``trademark
license''. They just need to make sure that anyone who might
consider releasing a product based on Apache
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Mark Wielaard
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 06:15, Albert Chin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Um, no. We
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 19:50, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark
license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls
over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the
open source community.
Hello,
As pt_PT translator and rpm packager of AbiWord, I have something to say
about this:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 08:59:12PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Isn't this what AbiSource does. They have the following statement about
their product:
snip
For more information see
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NCSA Open Source License
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 19:50, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate
trademark
license is legally not possible, at least without many more
controls
over the quality of derivative
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote:
OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than
4, but yes it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully
lobby Apache to get rid of the advertising clause? They
: NCSA Open Source License
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote:
OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather
than 4, but yes
it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully lobby
Apache to get rid of
the advertising clause? They probably have enough
experience
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:38:20PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, the so-called advertising clause in the Apache license is
extremely important. As I stated in one of my columns in Linux Journal,
trademark protection is, in some respects, even more important to open
source companies
I am corresponding with NCSA regarding some work Open Source work that
they would be doing with partial funding from HP. One of the Open Source
licenses they use is the BSD license, but with the preliminary paragraph
of the MIT license replacing the BSD preliminary paragraph. This creates a
That would be three licenses, I think.
OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than 4, but yes
it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully lobby Apache to get rid of
the advertising clause? They probably have enough experience now to see it's
had no positive effect.
Yes, I saw the present advertising clause. It's close to being a no-op, but
if you want it there, I guess I can't make much headway in this. Well, what
do you folks plan to do when faced with yet another BSD/MIT license?
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at
Bruce Perens writes:
Yes, I saw the present advertising clause. It's close to being a no-op, but
if you want it there, I guess I can't make much headway in this. Well, what
do you folks plan to do when faced with yet another BSD/MIT license?
Approve it. We judge licenses by one set of
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Approve it. We judge licenses by one set of criteria: the OSD. We
do, it is admitted, sometimes attempt to convince people to use an
existing license. Feel free to try this with NCSA.
Yes, I'm trying. I will probably bring you folks in to help at some
20 matches
Mail list logo
