Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
We are looking at open sourcing a software project and are currently
trying to evaluate BSD vs. Apache. The issue is that our code base
includes Xerces-C (XML parser) which is under Apache Public License.
The implication, then, is that for both subsequent source and
To clarify:
Please refer to the "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses" section
on the GNU web site at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Second, my mistake was in wording: We are not going to turn over our
software to Apache, therefore when I say we
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
This is my _understanding_ of what happens when people use Apache,
and that it was the major criticism of the original BSD license,
hence the new BSD license.
And hence the Apache 1.1 licence revision, which mirrored that
change in the BSD licence.
I
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
The only licenses halfway-acceptable for me are the OOGl and OGL.
What do you like about these licenses?
I have two
issues with them. First, they are lengthy and potentially confusing (to the
user) licenses.
Second, they are copyleft, and I
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
If we were to do this, and subsequent developers were to do the
same, then each developer who redistributed the accumulated code
base with new files and entirely new code which they put under
_their_ version of
I recall I while ago we started receiving updates as to what licenses
are waiting, and what licenses are approved/refused and why. This
doesn't seem to have happened for a while - any chance of it happening
again (please).
I mainly ask as I am wondering about getting more information on the
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3,
That's a good change.
but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
That isn't good, and is IMO
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
Why is it always the non-GPL license that must
On Tuesday March 20 2001 01:39 pm, phil hunt wrote:
Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for
this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve
copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public
domain game and they
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 07:43:31PM +, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
The Open Gaming License isn't quite what it seems.
The difference between that license and the GPL is that without the GPL, you
can't distribute copies at all, and the GPL gives you the right to distribute
copies under some conditions--that is, it adds rights.
The Open Gaming license is closer
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:19 am, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL
never criticized for being incompatible?
Er, actually, it sounds like he's considering substantive changes in
GPLv3, or at least "clarifications" for the
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other question is: if your objectives align with those of the GPL
(copyleft, promotion of free software), why would you need a different
license? This isn't an entirely rhetorical question.
There's a difference between
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:46 am, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The Open Gaming license is closer to extortion. The key is that game rules
are not copyrightable, and normally you'd have complete rights to create
D20-compatible material. However, TSR threatens to sue people who do that.
Since
On Wednesday March 21 2001 06:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a difference between aligning and coinciding. If my goals
coincided exactly with the FSF, you would be completely right. But if
they differ even a tiny fraction, then the possibility exists that
another license is more
16 matches
Mail list logo
