Tina Gasperson wrote:
Everyone is permitted to use, modify, and redistribute this
software, provided the above copyright notice and this permission
notice are included with all copies, modifications, and
redistributions.
I think you need a warranty disclaimer.
Here is the shortest free
- begin text of The Simple Permissive License v0.1 -
Copyright (c) [YEAR] [AUTHOR NAME]
Permission is hereby granted to any person to use this software in any
way, including to modify it and redistribute it, subject to the following
conditions:
The above copyright notice and this
Hi all,
I'm looking for an appropriate license for my web application.
Basically, I like the GPL, but since it's a web application a
competitor could easily take my code, modify the lot, and offer it as a
service by deploying it on his own server. Since his clients would only
see the generated
Hello,
I think your simple versions can be simplified even further. What about
this:
(C) [year] [author]
Copying, distribution and modification of this software is allowed.
No warranty: use at your own risk.
You don't need to say anything about things that are default in
copyright law. It
Mikko Valimaki wrote:
You don't need to say anything about things that are default in
copyright law. It is default that author's 'moral rights' including the
copyright notice may not be removed unless the work is substantially
modified.
So, if the work is substantially modified, the
Bruce Perens writes:
I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting
the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose
upon them.
Are you volunteering to write this language yourself, or volunteering
someone else?
--
-russ nelson
John Cowan writes:
Also they sell mice, which must surely be an insignificant part of
their revenue, but why would they do it if it didn't make money for them?
Actually, Microsoft's hardware division is quite profitable. The last
figure that I heard was that it provided one third of the
What I want to accomplish is that if someone deploys a changed version
of my application he'd be required to publish those changes (or at least
send them to me and license me to use them in my free version), and that
the visitors of the generated pages would have a way to identify the
Mikko Valimaki scripsit:
You don't need to say anything about things that are default in
copyright law. It is default that author's 'moral rights' including the
copyright notice may not be removed unless the work is substantially
modified.
The U.S., complying grudgingly with the terms of
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Perens writes:
I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting
the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose
upon them.
Russ Nelson:
Are you volunteering to write this language yourself, or
On Saturday 09 February 2002 10:33 am, Randy Kramer wrote:
So, if the work is substantially modified, the copyright notice can be
removed? In that case I think I'd want something to keep my name on it
as the original author, despite substantial modification -- maybe with a
pointer to where
On Saturday 09 February 2002 03:34 am, Emiliano wrote:
What I want to accomplish is that if someone deploys a changed version
of my application he'd be required to publish those changes (or at least
send them to me and license me to use them in my free version), and that
the visitors of the
Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Saturday 09 February 2002 01:26 pm, Christian Gross wrote:
Can someone please tell me what the difference is and why the APSL is
considered Open Source and why the Microsoft License is not?
The APSL allows you to use the software for commercial use, provide you
submit any modifications
Please excuse my ignorance again... But here is the paragraph from the APSL
2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute
Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal
research and development and/or Personal Use, provided that in each instance:
(Sorry my email cut me off by accident)
Please excuse my ignorance again... But here is the paragraph from the APSL
2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute
Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal
research and development and/or
Bruce,
Ok, presumably this will do it.
Randy Kramer
Bruce Perens wrote:
Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
At 15:29 09/02/2002 -0800, David Johnson wrote:
On Saturday 09 February 2002 02:48 pm, Christian Gross wrote:
2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute
Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal
research and development and/or Personal
On Saturday 09 February 2002 03:32 pm, Christian Gross wrote:
I saw that too and I thought hey no problem. But then 2.2.a explicitly
states:
(a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the
Source Code of the Covered Code;
Which would say, sure you can deploy
I'm not sure you guys really want to chop out all the stuff about
implied warranties and so forth. I know it makes the license long and
that's contrary to what yo'ure trying to do, but without explicitly
disclaiming the implied warranties of fitness to purpose and
merchantability, you are
20 matches
Mail list logo
