I made a revision to the SHPTRANS License Template.
http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html
The changes are highlighted in the HTML.
For those looking at the text version which Russ posted:
I reversed the order of the first two conditions, got rid of the required
brief
Here are my comments on the SHPTRANS License Template (as modified):
* You grant permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute the
accompanying software. Do you also intend to grant permission to
distribute the modifications? Is the grant perpetual? Sub-licenseable?
Royalty-free?
* In
At Bruce Dodson's suggestion, I have revised section 3 of the Open
Software License (Grant of Source Code License) so that the term
Source Code is general enough to apply to other works besides
traditional software. I also removed the confusing term interface
documentation and refer instead to
[ Thanks, folks. Approval discussion of the SHPTRANS License Template
is now closed. ]
Bruce Dodson writes:
I made a revision to the SHPTRANS License Template.
http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html
The changes are highlighted in the HTML.
By suggesting that
Hi everyone,
Here is a link to the RealNetworks Public Source License (RPSL):
http://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl.html
Note that this is version 0.9. We're not yet submitting it for
approval; there's some more edits for clarity that we intend to make.
Nevertheless, based on many
I thought this process was one in which the license is submitted for
discussion, minor revisions are made if needed, and the license is
eventually accepted or rejected.
From your web page describing the approval process: 6. At the same time, we
will monitor the license-discuss list and work with
Bruce Dodson writes:
I thought this process was one in which the license is submitted for
discussion, minor revisions are made if needed, and the license is
eventually accepted or rejected.
How can one resolve problems if one is not allowed to change the license?
I don't know? WHAT
At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
four licenses back for reconsideration. Here's the hitch: we were
asked to approve a license which includes a requirement for
click-wrap.
The submittor had
My response is yes. In fact, the OSD recommendations I am developing as part
of the OSD Model Code proposal will include a suggestion on which article
and what language might be best to accomplish this. I am hoping to post the
complete proposal during the fall semester.
- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D.,
Russell Nelson scripsit:
I don't know? WHAT was I THINKING? Did space aliens capture my brain
and replace it with one much smaller? Maybe I just had a stupid attack?
Low blood sugar? Bad dates?
I actually thought it must be a forged response!
--
John Cowan
On Thursday 01 August 2002 08:18 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
The submittor had already been asked if that requirement was a
necessity. She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We
consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without
click-wrap is weaker at protecting your
I agree with David that click-wrap (or click-through or web-wrap...)
generally denotes what he describes as download-wrap licenses. Leaving
aside the matter of use-wrap licensing, courts seem to viewing click-wrap
licensing in two forms: the passive license and the active license. What
is at
12 matches
Mail list logo
