Hi!
I'm not sure whether this is an appropriate question for this list, so
please accept my apology in advance.
The situation is the following: I work for a small internet company, which
is going to do some software development as a government contract. We
would like to release the software
Hi *,
which
is going to do some software development as a government contract.
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
The software contractors might need to do some hand-holding for the gov.
agency
Here's your biggest problem, IMO:
(From the Open Source Definition
(http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html))
# 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
# The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
# 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
# The
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
I agree - and some Danish government agencies do, too. That's why this
project must be Open Source.
PS:
2. If you
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Feller, Joe wrote:
Here's your biggest problem, IMO:
# 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
# The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
# 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
I know. It's kind of interesting: you
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Kenneth Geisshirt wrote:
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
I agree - and some Danish government agencies do, too. That's why this
project must be Open Source.
The swedish
John Cowan writes:
One must be careful about the meaning of distributed. AFAICT, if I
(a Reuters employee) download APSLed code and make a Modification to it
solely for my own use qua employee, not distributing it within Reuters
at all, that is not Personal Use, it is still Deployed code
I have taken the liberty of making a TWiki page (actually pages) of the
first license listed below. The intent is to provide a means of easily
commenting and accumulating comments on the license, mostly on a per
paragraph basis.
Please try it out at:
PS: I should have mentioned that twiki.org (on SourceForge) is
experiencing a lot of 500 Internal Server Errors the past few days. A
support request has been issued to SourceForge -- I don't know if
anybody knows what the problem is at this time. (It *might* be a
problem only for users of
Kenneth Geisshirt said:
Sorry, typing error. The idea is to force non-educational to publish
derived work (substitute last not with must, please). GPL can do that, I
guess, but let us assume that I wish to be more liberal with educational
institution (they will never compete on the
Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
The swedish government is having a hard time to have limitations on
software they produce by first copyright, and then further by applying an
open source license on it. They're still investigating how an open source
license can be combined with swedish laws.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, John Cowan wrote:
The swedish government is having a hard time to have limitations on
software they produce by first copyright, and then further by applying an
open source license on it. They're still investigating how an open source
license can be combined with
Russell Nelson wrote:
In the real world, with judges, lawyers, and courts, Apple would have
to 1) discover that you have used it personally as an employee, and 2)
prove that you did this wearing your employee hat, as opposed to the
personal use of your work computer.
It is not clear to me
John Cowan writes:
As for your second point, it is also quite unclear from the license,
at least to me (IANAL), just who it is that has the burden of persuasion
on the subject of Deployment. Must Apple prove that my use was
commercial, or is it up to me to prove that it was not?
True.
I'm getting the same error with Konqueror.
PS: I should have mentioned that twiki.org (on SourceForge) is
experiencing a lot of 500 Internal Server Errors the past few days. A
support request has been issued to SourceForge -- I don't know if
anybody knows what the problem is at this time.
Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
Well, both have a copyright notice.
True, but what the copyright notice takes away, the license gives back.
In the U.S., there is a legal requirement that what the Federal
government writes through its own employees (as opposed to what it pays
to have written for it)
Hello all,
I've been reading the Motosoto Open Source License.
The following details struck me:
1) the derivation from JOSL is apparent, but
somehow Motosoto managed to garble the
paragraph numbers. Not a real disaster,
just inconvenient.
2) In the paragraph numbered 5, Motosoto
Hello all,
Apologies if this question has been covered before. I haven't been
on this list for many months.
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote:
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from
Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the
first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source
and compiling it yourself. Is that
Karsten M. Self scripsit:
It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
modifications and derived works must be freely distributable,
The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand. GPL != Open Source.
Anyone could redistribute
the official source (but *not* modified
22 matches
Mail list logo
