On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ralf Schwoebel wrote:
We still wait for comments from the board on our license, but
meanwhile please comment on that:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
Heh, I wish they had included the part where I said if MS really said that
Open Source was a
This will appear to be an extremely pedantic email, but it arises from a
discussion with a corporate lawyer who I believe was genuinely confused by
some of the wording in the Open Source Definition.
The discussion focussed around the intent of clause 1, Free Redistribution,
in particular "The
Brian Behlendorf writes:
Bullocks - you may agree or disagree with the
contention that swapping someone else's IP against their will is theft,
but you can't claim that someone who writes software and *intentionally*
gives it away for free is a threat to anyone.
That person is a threat to
Forutnately for us Europeans, that doesn't apply here - software and
algorithms are, IIUC, non-patentable in Europe. IANAL
[DJW:] The recent UK government consultation paper++ on
the possibility of introducing US like software patents
said that European law allowed software patents where
Richard Boulton scripsit:
We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
The answer is clearly "no".
If the answer is no, I humbly
From: Richard Boulton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
[DJW:]
The GPL is
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Going out of business is a real, time-honored, traditional market
response to changing conditions. Some people (Schumpeter?) have
written entire books on how it's supposed to be a really good thing
that firms can go out of business. But surely those firms would have
On Friday 16 February 2001 02:20 am, Seth David Schoen wrote:
If there were a big market for some kind of labor and a lot of people
began to do that same labor as volunteers, or as a hobby, the people
who did it for a living would see their livelihood threatened, even
though the activities
On Friday 16 February 2001 01:49 am, Richard Boulton wrote:
The discussion focussed around the intent of clause 1, Free Redistribution,
in particular "The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale."
As a child, when your lawyer's mother told him that he "may not have a
John Cowan writes:
Richard Boulton scripsit:
We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
The answer is clearly "no".
From a public-policy perspective, the object should be that the public
is well-served. In this sense, the criterion for judging the "threat"
of free software is whether an economy that includes free software
provides a public benefit equal to or better than an economy that
doesn't include free
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:00 am, Tom Hull wrote:
2) It pushes the argument that Microsoft is not a monpoloy, that
Microsoft faces serious, threatening competition, and therefore
that breakup is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.
Actually, it's a very good argument.
Of course, this is a blatant FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) strategy
at work -- tossing out ridiculously muddled thoughts in hopes that
they can cause IP anxieties surrounding Napster to be associated with
the phrase "open source". No shame!
QUOTE from the article:
Microsoft has told U.S.
begin Jordan Logos Greenhall quotation:
So, would a world powered by Linux be worse-off than a world powered by
Windows?
http://www.perlguy.net/images/opensource1.gif
--
Cheers,Before enlightenment, caffeine.
Rick Moen After
--- Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when a group of entities get together and decide to "sell" a
thing at a cost substantially lower than the cost of production, *with the
intent to affect other parties who can not make a similar unreturned
investment*, then that is usually called
15 matches
Mail list logo
