I disagree. (I know, I do that a lot, but I mean well.)
It's best if licenses are simply either approved or not approved. There is
no list of licenses that have been rejected or withdrawn; that would be
punitive. By the same token, there should be no special status given to
licenses in limbo.
Lewis Collard wrote:
The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the
OSL 1.1 does not have this problem).
Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
Count me in. If I can't modify the software for
, 2002 4:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
Lewis Collard wrote:
The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source
(the OSL 1.1
does not have this problem).
Then I disagree with the certification
Lawrence E. Rosen top-posted:
Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal
modification?
Beats me. Probably Lewis Collard could answer that (I didn't attribute all
individual comments to keep down size of post - an error I'll try to not
repeat).
Personally I referred to the
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open
Source.
Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open
Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at
Mike Nordell r sez:
Lawrence E. Rosen top-posted:
Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal
modification?
Beats me. Probably Lewis Collard could answer that (I didn't attribute all
individual comments to keep down size of post - an error I'll try to not
repeat).
I
Mike Nordell scripsit:
The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the
OSL 1.1 does not have this problem).
Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
Count me in. If I can't modify the
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal
modification? Is this the way rumors start? Does OSL 1.1 have that
problem? (See www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html) /Larry Rosen
I was a tad unclear here, which seems to have started the trouble.
I
Ralph Mellor scripsit:
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open
Source.
Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open
Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at
John Cowan r sez:
Ralph Mellor scripsit:
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant,
ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open
Source.
Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open
Sourceness in its current incarnation? The
Lewis Collard scripsit:
The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1
does not have this problem).
and doesn't permit
commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute
it for profit by claiming the
Lewis Collard scripsit:
Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
(No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.)
I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving
OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD.
Anyway, this discussion
Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!
If you don't have power over other people, you are a slave.
Boy, that is extreme.
Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching. I see
sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate. Neither John nor David
should feel particularly distinguished by my response.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:20:22AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:24:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
...
Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1.
What is "CMM"? What is "CMM level 1"?
CMM is an acronym for the Capability Maturity Model, a metric of
software
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:40:23PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free
Software?
Failing to read the FSF's licenses
Angelo Schneider wrote:
Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!
Wow! 85 lines of question-begging. I believe that's a new record.
Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant?
--
Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm
Rick Moen for
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
Angelo Schneider wrote:
Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!
Wow! 85 lines of question-begging. I believe that's a new record.
Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant?
Well, we can offer him lots of software for download at the
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
of the creator.
This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom". If you are
going to use terms in nonstandard ways, you need to explain them,
not just appeal to them as
Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding?
So I simply delete and skip that part :-)
Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976
to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically
including the EU.
In the EU it is not possible to transfer a
Well,
I'm not a native english speaker,
first fault.
I learned british english in scholl,
second fault.
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
of the creator.
This is incoherent on any known definition of
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding?
So I simply delete and skip that part :-)
Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976
to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world,
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom
of the creator.
This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom".
freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
I do not know of any other
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
original owner still have it?
Doesn't work. "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
do not have the potential market that I did before. That market has been
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:
freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want.
I do not know of any other definition.
Freedom is freedom to act, or not to act, in a certain way. What
action, or inaction, of the creator is prevented when I make
unauthorized copies of
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that
creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for
their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a
monopoly on distribution of copies.
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:30:14PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote:
Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the
original owner still have it?
Doesn't work. "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I
do not
Yes, I agree with RMS here. We should not call it piracy but
slavery. Unauthorized copying of intellectual capital/property
means denying the freedom of the IP holder.
No, it means denying the power of the copyright owner. Control over
your own actions is freedom. Control over the
There are other equally usable terms that do not carry the same
polemical associations with evil and violence. "Bootlegging" comes
readily to mind.
I recommend "unauthorized copying". It is a neutral, factual
description which expresses no opinion.
The image of pillaging bucanneers may be an unfortunate association,
but it is metaphorically correct.
That copyright infringement is illegal is a fact, but "piracy" doesn't
just refer to that fact. It makes a moral statement, and it is the
moral statement that I say "shame" to.
You
Which is way I also dislike the terms "slavery", "subjugation" and
"domination" in reference to closed source software. These terms also
have polemical associations with evil and violence. If one metaphor is
wrong, then so is the other.
I have little to say about closed-source
But the idea that
information can be stolen already has a strong foothold in the public
mind, even among the Free Software and Open Source movements. For
example, I have often heard that one should use a copyleft rather than
an unrestricted license so that "the source code
My understanding was that a legal entity can make private
modifications to GPL software and is allowed to keep those
modifications private,
That is our interpretation. In other words, using a copy
within the company is not distribution to others.
So, since a corporation is
I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to
imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
ship.
Richard Stallman wrote:
--
Von: Richard Stallman[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. September 2000 14:59:11
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Plan 9
D]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to
imply that unauthorized copying is the
begin Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. quotation:
...Instead, [Eric Raymond] was, apparently, responding to the
plaintiff's inaccurate characterization that the open source movement
supports copyright infringement. In this respect, his use of the term
makes sense and is correct. (Merriam Webster's
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe
unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to
imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a
ship.
The image of pillaging bucanneers
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
If someone makes an unauthorized copy of your source
code, they may have infringed your copyright, but they have not stolen your
source code. You still have possession of that.
Of course! I'm not nearly as dense as to believe otherwise :-)
PROTECTED]; Martin Konold; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 11:45:02AM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
[...]
First, there is no requirement to give changes back to the orginal
authors. If I modify gcc, for example, and
For the record, that would be the Free Software _Foundation_, wouldn't it?
He could come up with his own ideas and call his new organization the
Free Software Movement with (I would expect) very little legal
difficulty (aside from potential public backlash from potential
confusion with the
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
The Free Software Movement has its goals, its philosophy, and its
definition of free software. You probably have your own goals and
philosophy, and if you want to have a different idea of what free
software means, you can do that too. But then it
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I think I've mentioned it before, but I still find the most effective
patent license I've ever heard to be one John Gilmore proposed on the FSB
mailing list. It is pretty much a "GPL" for patents; it says
You may use this patent for any
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
You're right that the definition of free software, like the definition
of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are committed to
the goals with which those definitions were written.
But people other than those sharing your goals need
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Martin Konold wrote:
I think that this imposes a big thread on free software because it give
large multinational cooperations an uncompetetive advantage compared to
small businesses.
E.g. big multinational companies can make substantial changes and
improvements to
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
In case I missed your point, the not charging for the Package itself
stuff is okay as well. Everywhere where fee or price is discussed in
the "FSD", it is for distribution or copying. The GPL is in agreement on
this as well. Since it does not
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
As Brian Behlendorf pointed out, this list is concerned with
OSD-compliance, not with anyone's definition of free software.
All things being equal, I think the community prefers (and should
prefer) to see licenses that are both Free (non-TM) and Open
begin John Cowan quotation:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
As Brian Behlendorf pointed out, this list is concerned with
OSD-compliance, not with anyone's definition of free software.
All things being equal, I think the community prefers (and should
prefer) to see licenses that
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
For that matter, it is better if licenses are not only these things,
but Fair (non-TM), too. So I will also discuss points that seem to
me un-Fair (i.e. "we can do what we want with your changes, you
can't", or "this license is automatically construed
Title: RE: Plan 9 license
unsubscribe me
Vinodh K Sankar
Software Engineer,
MindTree Consulting Pvt Ltd ,
Gandibazar , Bangalore - 560 004
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/vinodhksankar
Ph (O): +91-80-6528333/6529302/6529125
/6520557/6520535/6520474/6520297
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that
licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect
their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell
Labs to demand private source is also
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
RMS claims that the Artistic License is not free. His reasoning seems to be
that it is vague. If vagueness disqualifies a license from being free,
then people should know it right up front.
It's not unfree (according to RMS) because it's vague per
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet
"official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD
even if it strays from the general spirit several times.
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote:
Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license (
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could
someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the
relevent messages in the archives (is there an
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote:
Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license (
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could
someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote:
Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license (
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could
someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the
relevent messages in the archives (is there an web
-Original Message-
From: pgmr [mailto:pgmr]On Behalf Of Kenneth Stephen
Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license (
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could
someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the
relevent
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
[snip]
I do think David makes a very good point. Although provisions like sections
6.1(i) and 6.1(ii) are not unusual for non-mass market software licenses,
they do not seem to meet the spirit of an open source license. (Of course,
it would
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I can understand where they're coming from with the clause, but it
would have been nice if they limited it to copyright infringements. The
way it is now, if I goof up and misuse the Lucent trademark as it
relates to telephones, I lose the license to
59 matches
Mail list logo
