On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 8:57 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
- Some people think that copyright law doesn't actually allow you to
- prevent people who have a legal copy of the software from using it in
- any way they like.
In other words does transferring the software to another person also
On Wednesday March 28 2001 08:27 am, David Davies wrote:
One key point of the argument is the
"In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it
up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission
from the copyright holder."
The key point being
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 8:45 AM, David Johnson wrote
- The OSD is an attempt to formally define Free Software (*).
- It was never
- meant, I believe, to be a list of restrictions on licenses.
Because of the well known ambiguity between Free (Beer) and Free (Speech) It
would seem this
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep
your software closed source?
Because "Open Source" and "Free Software" are ideologies. And a lot I
know think, its right to incluse the source code. But its not right to
get no fees from those who use the
I'm going to give a talk on the benefits of the Open Source Principles
for the developement of chemistry software (especially in academia) and
I'll first step through the 9 points of the open source definition.
I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license
must ...
From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license
must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms"
instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...".
[DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL is
Christoph Steinbeck scripsit:
What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license
to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.).
The BSD license allows just this, and it is both Open Source and Free.
The point of point 3 is that the original author can't prevent the
free
Christoph Steinbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license
to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.).
The other replies explained why the wording is "allow" instead
of "require" in OSD point #3. They were accurate.
I
Thanks to everyone who answered. The replies pretty much covered
everything that I wanted to know and they removed a missunderstanding.
Regards,
Chris
--
Dr. Christoph Steinbeck (http://www.ice.mpg.de/departments/ChemInf)
MPI of Chemical Ecology, Carl-Zeiss-Promenade 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
On Wednesday March 28 2001 09:07 am, David Davies wrote:
Is there a secondary purpose to also ensure that the software can be
obtained and used without payment?
It's pretty clear that the software can be used without payment. The only
fees allowable are for the purposes of obtaining it.
--
On Wednesday March 28 2001 12:27 pm, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just
keep your software closed source?
Also its a bit pathetic to say: "Yeah, he gives you also the source, but
that is not Open Source. He should make it closed
Title: RE: Subscription/Service Fees
Gentle people,
I hate to jump in the middle, sorry for the distraction.
IMHO, what you describe is not open source or free
software, but rather you can't buy this software.
Carter
Carter Bullard
QoSient, LLC
300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K
New
Title: RE: Subscription/Service Fees
Hey Dave,
Hmmm, I did think that we were talking about licenses,
but lets correct the statement.
I hate to jump in the middle, sorry for the distraction.
IMHO, what you describe is not open source or free
software, but rather you can't buy this
Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try
to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not
everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc.
I think most people on this list
On Thursday, 29 March 2001 4:35 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
- What we do say is something which I think is very simple: open source
- has a meaning. It is probably true that it is harder to make money
- producing software that is open source than it is producing software
- which is not open
begin David Davies quotation:
That's a great point that everyone can respect. But who decides what
the definition of Open Source is ?
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html does, because:
1. It's the only clear yardstick we have, and
2. The OSI got there first.
If you want a concept that
On Thursday March 29 2001 03:25 am, Eric Jacobs wrote:
It is this sort of illogical argument that will prevent this issue from
ever coming to rest. Let me offer an analogy.
I did manage to pass logic in college. However, I don't always do so well in
English. Let me restate what I meant:
Eric Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It may certainly be possible to have a registration fee for Open Source
software. I am not denying that. However, until such a time as the
registration fee is paid, the software cannot be considered Open Source.
David Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.
Well, I kind of think it would. But the way to test that is to
propose a license which requires a license fee, and to try
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
) It may certainly be possible to have a [requirement that derivative
works
) be licensed under the GPL] for Open Source software. I am not
denying
) that. However, until such a time as the [requirement that derivative
) works be licensed under
On Thursday March 29 2001 05:35 am, Eric Jacobs wrote:
My statement that Bob has all the rights which Andy has but does not
have the requirement of distributing under the GPL is derived from
David Johnson's argument about OSD #7 -- namely, that a recipient of
Open Source software gains all
21 matches
Mail list logo
