Samuel White
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)
Robert Samuel White wrote:
I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions
should
be able to disclaim their liability as well.
(some semantic hair
In one of my licenses, I use the phrase the copyright holders and
contributing authors instead of my own name, in the disclaimers. The BSD
license says copyright holders and contributors, and the AFL goes one step
further, saying licensor, contributors, and copyright owners. (I think
licensor
Mahesh,
I do not believe technically that the configuration wizard would suffice
for the legal purposes the click-wrap is designed for... I believe this
because you must first install the package on your system (it must be
running on the server) before you can actually access the configuration
The updated license is available at
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html and below. I believe
this can be considered the final revision and as such ready for
consideration by the OSI.
eNetwizard Content Application Server License
(Modified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright
?
Thanks,
Samuel
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)
Robert Samuel White wrote
Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:13 AM
To: OSI License Discussion
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I have updated
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the
condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly.
Before: You may not charge any fees for the Package itself.
After: You may not charge any fees for
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
1.
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html
2.
My license is loosely based upon the Artistic License and the PHP
License http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt.
The Artistic License is most suitable to my wishes because I wish to
maintain some
: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard
Content Application Server)
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
1.
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html
2.
My license is loosely based upon
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribers,
From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html
Your reasoning behind using this license is quite good. The license is
both fair and equitable, and is compliant with the Open Source
10 matches
Mail list logo
