[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and
perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
Why?
I believe that would be discrimination against users which is against the OSD.
Ravicher, Daniel (x2826) scripsit:
This brings up issue (a), in
that if Developer, owner of patent claims covering A and B, modifies and
distributes the software to cover A, then Developer has granted, under the
OSL, a license to practice A with respect to the software as distributed by
[ please discuss this license. Oh, wait, I see, you probably already
have. Well, if you have anything further to say, now's the time to
say it. -russ ]
This is a formal approval request for OSI certification of RPSL 1.0 (my
apologies for not reading the instructions more carefully).
Because of the kind of patent situation described in Brian's original
email and in the response below, I wanted to make the OSL more precise
than the MPL. The OSL defines Licensed Claims in terms of the
Original Work:
...patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are
embodied
On Friday 22 November 2002 04:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear list:
The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6,
and perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
Why?
The following is my opinion only, but
David Johnson wrote:
The following is my opinion only, but it may help to explain the
why. Software is fundamentally a different class of product than
a material product like a chair. Both copyright and the nature of
software copying makes this so.
Which is why copyright law should not apply
6 matches
Mail list logo
