Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-03-10 Thread Bill Moran
ECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1 : Thanks to everyone who has contributed suggestions so far. : : After further review, we're still not completely happy with the QPL and : wish to con

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-27 Thread John Cowan
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: > Bill, > > My overall impression of this version of your license is that it contains > unnecessary provisions, which you could delete given your stated purpose for > the license, but before addressing that I think paragraph 3 needs a little > work to fully establi

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-27 Thread Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
uot;David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1 : Thanks to everyone who has contributed suggestions so far. : : After further review

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-24 Thread Bill Moran
Thanks to everyone who has contributed suggestions so far. After further review, we're still not completely happy with the QPL and wish to continue revision and discussion on the EPD Core license. I am posting a V.2 of this license, which has incorporated many of the changes suggested earlier in t

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-14 Thread John Cowan
Bill Moran scripsit: > How, exactly, should we approach this? Create a new license that contains > the above verbage, which would be a derivative of the QPL, or is that > overkill? I could simply put the third paragraph in the header of each > distributed file - would that be enough? IANAL, but

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-14 Thread Bill Moran
John Cowan wrote: Bill Moran scripsit: > In the large, this license seems rather close to the QPL. Have you > examined that license for suitability? Yes, for the most part it seems very similar, but here's where I see differences: Our license is designed specifically to respect the rights of an

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-14 Thread John Cowan
Bill Moran scripsit: > All things considered, we could add a clause that explicitly warrants that > we have legal ownership and the legal right to distribute the work, but I > didn't think that was necessary. All contributors whatever, whether original or otherwise, should warrant their IP in the

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-14 Thread Bill Moran
David Johnson wrote: On Thursday 13 February 2003 09:06 pm, Bill Moran wrote: [ Please discuss this license. -russ ] I have attached a license that we are proposing to be OSI compliant. The license is also posted here: http://www.potentialtech.com/epdlicense.php First of all, it would be bes

Re: discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

2003-02-13 Thread David Johnson
On Thursday 13 February 2003 09:06 pm, Bill Moran wrote: > [ Please discuss this license. -russ ] > > I have attached a license that we are proposing to be OSI compliant. > The license is also posted here: > http://www.potentialtech.com/epdlicense.php First of all, it would be best if you can cra