Guilherme C. Hazan writes:
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???
It isn't not anymore.
--
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | You know you have a
Crynwr sells support
used with their permission. The permission required is described
um, i think this could be misunderstood. you don't need thier
*permission* you need to meet the guidelines that they require. this
does not require written permission per se (at least that I can find) as
long as you are distributing
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and
On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
Y is
Rod Dixon scripsit:
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Alex.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Read it. Isnt it distribution-limited?
regards
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Hi,
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
thx
guich
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
Enterprise Source License and OEM Source License.
I am guessing these are Gluecode-invented names. I have
Hi,
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
ESL: Enterprise Source License
OSL: OEM Source License
None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
License is certainly not open-source since it does not allow to
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess. I do not see a direct answer to your question
Hi Alex
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess.
That makes sense. But what we think when we see the logo in the site is that
Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
ESL: Enterprise Source License
OSL: OEM Source License
None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
License is certainly not open-source since it does not
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Simple. Their license is *not* OSI certified and they are misusing the logo
under false pretenses. (Their
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:42 PM
To: Guilherme C. Hazan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the
html?
The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be
used with their permission. The permission required is described
here:
, 2004 1:42 PM
To: Guilherme C. Hazan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What
daniel wallace scripsit:
*sigh*
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
Preparing is what B does, not what A does.
There was a meeting of the minds so Author A and
Author B are in privity... they are not strangers to
The GPL is not a contract. It requires no consent and no privity.
The author simply declares how she exercises her rights. Nobody has
to agree to it.
Seth Johnson
-Original Message-
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:40:33 -0500
Subject: Why the GPL is
...etc...more repeats of old arguments already corrected.
I find this thread interesting in that it shows that it is not just the
lawyers for SCO that have problems understanding copyright law. While
this is not to excuse all the confusions here, I do suspect that it lends
some
--- daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author A and Author B are in contractual privity.
Author A approached Author B with a GPL license and
Author B said to Author A, I accept the GPL and agree
to its terms. There was a meeting of the minds so
Author A and Author B are in privity... they
--- daniel wallace wrote:
See the Supreme Court citation [i]t goes without
saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.?
And that is precisely the reason why any license,
including for instance, the BSD license, would be
non-binding as a contract to anyone other than whoever
entered the
To John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] and OSI License Discussion
subscribers,
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED],
All good advice, Larry :-)
No no no no no no no. It is *not* advice. It is *not* advice. It is
only education!
Although this posting was written
On 30 Dec 2003, at 7:06h, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge,
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Although this posting was written by a non-lawyer, I am not *your*
non-lawyer, nor are you my non-client. If you have a specific problem,
you should pay your own non-lawyer the big bucks to give you his
very own personalized non-answer.
Is it just me,
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least. We write
code for a living and would like to share as much of it as
possible with the outside, both because it makes us feel good
and because it increases the number of people making it better.
For that copy-center or copy-left would work.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, David Presotto wrote:
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least.
...
to be most useful to the rest of the company, we need to let our
code also be mixable with proprietary stuff in the company. We could
do lots of bookkeeping to separate what we wrote from
Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the
difference between BSD and public domain?
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public domain in the U.S.
The [U.S.] law is based on prior cases and/or changing interpretation,
so nothing can be 100% clear. However, Creative Commons, O'Reilly, and
other
Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The [U.S.] law is based on prior cases and/or changing interpretation,
so nothing can be 100% clear. However, Creative Commons, O'Reilly, and
other folks seem to know a sufficiently good solution. For example,
Rick Moen scripsit:
It should be pointed out that a public domain declaration would _not_
be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which
may or may not work, and may have differing results depending on
jurisdiction).
In any case, the right to recapture the copyright
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
In any event, note that the page doesn't (even at that) assert that such
a declaration is legally effective.
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally
: Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
: non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place?
This is an interesting question. I am assuming that the poster is really
asking why use a non-copyleft license rather than a dedication to the public
domain, but since
PROTECTED]
To: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Why?
: Rick Moen scripsit:
:
: It should be pointed out that a public domain declaration would _not_
: be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which
: may
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why?
I have puzzled over John's comment concerning the right to
recapture the copyright. As a response to Rick's statement,
I do not know what John means???
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
Thanks for all your answers, but let me go at this one by one:
1)
a) Do I understand it correctly that you _believe_ that you can be sued
for damages if code that is distributed for free _fails_, at least in
the States? And that a disclaimer as it is presented with most Open
Source licenses
Jan Dockx wrote:
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place?
I'd guess the idea is so that other people can feel free to (re)use their
code/ software. If there is no licence then the other people wouldn't feel
free to
Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally effective.
You can believe that, but, from inquiries so far, it is not clear
Creative Common does. The matter, indeed, appears to occasion some
controversy.
Again, by
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Can we assume he means the right to terminate a license under certain
conditions? 17 U.S.C. ยง 203. This is an oft-confused issue. /Larry
I _think_ he's answering the question Can abandonment be irrevocable?,
which I asked a while ago. Assuming a PDD is abandoning
Quoting Jan Dockx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
3) I do not understand how the Lucent example relates to my question
about the difference between a permissible license such as BSD and
public domain. My main question here is: why are we so obsessed with
licenses? I understand for the FSF, and the
If you say so. I understand that for the patent infringement (see lower
and above), but for damages, I think it is weird. I would expect the
party that made money of it to get sued, and possibly convicted, but
not the original authors that put the thing in the public domain.
Actually, that
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
The real problem is of course that copyright is a statutory right
and like all statutory rights cannot be abandoned
Wow. Looks like you are saying that we have something that expires or
disappears after X years, but cannot be forced (accelerated)
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or
somebody should offer such a service.
Anonymous code is too
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or
somebody should
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: David Presotto [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Are we really afraid that we will be sued for damages by something
we give away for free (as in free
James Harrell scripsit:
The obvious major issue, is now that another commercial entity (Netscape)
has the authority to subvert the license. Not that they would, but they
could. Not having this section templated (ie: Insert company name here)
is a show stopper. Am I missing something?
If you
Rod Dixon scripsit:
Article 2 of the OSD sets out a requirement that if the
applicable license ignored the restriction or contained provisions that were
contra, the license would not be consistent with Article 2. I suspect the
OSI Board might reject such a license, if it were submitted. In
Alain =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9silets?= scripsit:
Looking on OSI's web site, I see that BSD is OSI certified.
However, one criteria for OSI certification is that:
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there
must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source
John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I
understand the distinction you are making. An open source software license
governs open source software. How did you splice this to get to Netscape
7.0? I can post part of Netscape's license, if necessary, but paragraph 5
(I think)
Rod Dixon scripsit:
John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I
understand the distinction you are making. An open source software
license
governs open source software.
Although the OSI certifies licenses, the OSD is a definition of what
it means for *software*
52 matches
Mail list logo
