On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Martin Konold wrote:
"wrong to use code in a way the author does not want you to use it"
Would you claim the very same for some Microsoft owned ActiveX component?
Yes. If they have an ActiveX component that they had undue
Hi David,
Thanks for your comments! You are one of the people whose comments I was
really hoping to get when posting this license to the list.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:15:08PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
From the features listed (I haven't read the license yet):
Hands the community the
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
My reasoning is that with many opensource projects the original
author may vanish. Someone else takes over maintaing the project,
but may not have the authority to defend the license. Thus when
the original author vanishes, people may infringe without
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Martin Konold wrote:
Ok, imagine a simple case: MS asks you to not use any of their components
in order to figure out how their file formats are working. Are you (maybe
you are a GPL Office Suite developer) accepting this?!
Now you're asking me to choose between the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, David Johnson wrote:
statement since then and have come to the conclusion that respecting
an author's wishes is good rule of thumb, but not an absolute principle
of behavior.
100% agreed. Thread closed ;-)
YOurs,
-- martin
// Martin Konold, Stauffenbergstr. 107, 72074
I submitted a Novell license for certification to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a month ago. To date I have seen not one
reply from the OSI board. Someone at Novell was able to contact Brian
Behlendorf directly yesterday, and got him to review the license in question.
But mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
I called Peter Deutsch to discuss this yesterday, but found that he has
dropped off of the OSI board. This wasn't announced. Perhaps I am looking
in the wrong place, but I can't find the OSI board
I'm told privately that this is incompetence and not conspiracy. But that
doesn't make it any less of a problem. We need to track this.
Thanks
Bruce
OK, I stand corrected about the board listing.
Thanks
Bruce
I am hoping also that the difficulty so many have had with unsusbscribing is
due to similar issues. I experienced this recently myself, when I noticed
that I hadn't seen an OSI board-member post in quite some time, nor indicate
they'd read a single blessed thing.
The directions to unsubscribe
Rod I really appreciate that you are taking some time to review this.
Thank you!
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 06:42:57AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Be careful. Free software is not exactly public domain, which is what I
think you have in mind. Only the copyright holder can go into court
From: "Matthew C. Weigel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am hoping also that the difficulty so many have had with unsusbscribing is
due to similar issues.
That's up to Russ Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Since he sells commercial
support for the list manager program, he should be able to fix it :-)
For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of
our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation,
or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution
of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the
rights to copy and distribute
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Justin Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 9:10 PM
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Simple Public License, Please
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:38:34PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
OK, I now understand what you are trying to do. I am concerned that these
holes you want to knock in your copyleft may turn out to be extraordinarily
large. A "consultant" or a "contractor" are terms with no legal
15 matches
Mail list logo
