Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
Hi,
I'm the author of a PHP-based webmail client called IlohaMail
(http://ilohamail.org) currently released under the GPL, and am
considering offering my software under a license that would maintain its
free (as in speech) nature but not necessarily be free (as in beer) in
On 7/16/2003, Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
they charge more than a reasonable distribution fee, they must pay
royalties to the project.
free as in speech? Not only individual are free to speech. Why
On 7/16/2003, Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
they charge more than a reasonable distribution fee, they must pay
royalties to the project.
[...]
Surely not free (5: No
I think all the feedback on this license is great and
on-point. I want to comment on the broader perspective
of how you got headed in this direction. And, IANAL,
TINLA. Amen.
We have seen many licenses on this list (and I have seen
even more from clients, potential clients and social
Thanks for all your comments. I see that my initial proposal did not fit
the Open Source Definition as outlined by OSI. I apologize for my lack
of research in that regard.
I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal.
Would it be possible to have a license identical to the
Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
?
--- Ryo Chijiiwa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a
revised proposal.
Would it be possible to have a license identical to
the GPL, except one
which has provisions for
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one
which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the
distribution of binary executables?
It would be possible to have such a license. I would object to it on the
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
expressed objections to this license as well.
IMO, this is not a free software license.
--
Mark Rafn
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
My strong recommendation: Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
individuals or corporations). The community has it's own strengths, the
vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to
make software less useful in order to
On 7/16/2003, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
one of the basic requirements in that
Mark Rafn scripsit:
This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading ASP
loophole. One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
and deployment. This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that code?
John Cowan wrote:
[ ... ]
Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS which I use
in my business? Presumably not; the right to make private changes
is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source licenses including the GPL.
Deploying software in an ASP is not IMHO essentially different; it
On 7/16/2003, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
expressed objections to this license as well.
IMO, this
What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
Besides, anyone who knows where I'm coming from knows I have no dislike
for revenue or branding.
/me re-lurks
Brian
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mike Wattier wrote:
Pardon me but, how does a statement like this
Trying to make
Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
On 7/16/2003, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
one of the
On 7/16/2003, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
On 7/16/2003, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
Perhaps my interpretation of the
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Would anyone care to comment on the licensing found here:
http://www.backplane.com/licensing.html
The examples here make it pretty clear what the rules are. But in general
the concept of corporate non-commercial use is bogus. Excluding
not-for-profit corporations,
Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
Their FAQ (http://www.affero.org/oagf.html) mentions that the license
should be compatible with GPL 3.0, and may be used as a replacement.
The FSF is still thinking about issuing a third version of the GPL, but it
has not yet done so, and may never do so.
--
In my last
On 7/16/2003, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
On 7/16/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces
for end users because that's not the intended audience.
Of course they are. End users use the http and smtp interfaces of such
servers every day. They are
The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows:
5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means
the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works
in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be
used by anyone other than You,
Thanks. The license was suggested to me off list by someone as well, and
apart from FSF having issues with it
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), it seems like it
fulfills most of my needs.
I'll present this to my users and see what they say.
Thanks again to everyone for your
To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC):
Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for
your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can
be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html.
Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model
23 matches
Mail list logo
