Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

On Friday 14 March 2003 09:58 pm, John Cowan wrote: > AFAIK that was the whole point: a common core shared among the > members, and then each to compete on the enhancements, the same as > (proprietary) Unix itself. Why does this sound so much like United Linux? :-) -- David Johnson

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Rick Moen scripsit: > But, again, I'd say that was almostly entirely a secondary effect of the > lawsuit. (I was a 386BSD user, back then. Things could have gone > entirely differently.) Well, bsdmafia.com is still available. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EM

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Quoting David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > IIRC correctly, the only proprietary fork of BSD after it became > unencumbered was NeXT. It would be interesting to hear from Steve Jobs > why he made NeXT closed but Darwin open. I suspect it was due to the > pressure of trying to keep a closed for

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Quoting Gunther Schadow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > It's just the very history of BSD that its code was used and close in > by most commercial UNIX systems, HPUX, SunOS, Ultrix, etc. But this > move ended up not helping BSD and customers of these proprietory BSD > derivatives could never get themselve

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson scripsit: > What caused the previous preponderance of incompatible proprietary X > implementations? I would point the finger not at the license but at the > Open Group, who could never make up their mind if they wanted the code > to be free or not. It seems to me that they actuall

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

On Friday 14 March 2003 08:34 pm, Gunther Schadow wrote: > David, I'm a loyal BSD disciple for over 10 years and I would never > put anything BSD down. It's just the very history of BSD that its > code was used and close in by most commercial UNIX systems, HPUX, > SunOS, Ultrix, etc. I'm trying t

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

On Friday 14 March 2003 08:03 pm, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Obviously you are correct that nobody took away the original free > code. But this is an example of a proprietary fork in which > end-users suffered. They could not incorporate improvements to the > free X Window system code on their ow

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson wrote: I was merely trying to get the poster to think beyond the anti-BSD stereotypes that are so common. His claim was merely a restatement of the tired "BSD is a license to steal" argument. David, I'm a loyal BSD disciple for over 10 years and I would never put anything BSD down.

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:32 am, Gunther Schadow wrote: > > > - The problem of the BSD license is that it allows commercial > >parties to take the source code away and contribute little, and > >take away the freedom of their customers to use

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > Sorry to have to knock that leg of the chair out from under you, Foo. And I was on such a roll! > That's why the term "compatibility" has been such a sore point for me. The point of the law school exam being for anyone to be able to show a difference in people's be

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson scripsit: > But Microsoft has not "embraced and extended" ftp, which is what the > scenario was describing, and which is what you admit as well. To call a statement an "admission" is an old debater's trick. > "Embrace and extend" is an issue that transcends mere licensing. No >

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Russ, Sorry to have to knock that leg of the chair out from under you, but I actually believe that the AFL license *does* apply to the portion of a derivative work that consists of the work originally licensed under the AFL. Eben and I agree on that. So really, there are two licenses that the l

Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Greg Pomerantz writes: > > Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > > > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the > > > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs > > > on this list to chime in: > > > > Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There'

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

On Friday 14 March 2003 11:03 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was under the impression that RedHat and MySQL AB (others?) were > *very* successfull businesses. It completely misses the whole point. Neither Redhat nor MySQL make any appreciable amount of money SELLING open source SOFTWARE. Inste

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

On Friday 14 March 2003 08:59 am, David A. Wheeler wrote: > Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add "Public Domain" to the > open source software license list I don't think anyone has brought this up yet, but the OSI only approves licenses. Public Domain is not a license. -- David Johnson __

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

On Friday 14 March 2003 03:25 am, John Cowan wrote: > It does take away the customer's freedom to use *every* improved > version whatsoever, because someone may make an improved version and > issue it as non-free software. Of course. But that was not the orginal poster's complaint about the BSD

Re: why MPL is hard for other companies to adopt? (was RE: Open SourceBusiness Found Parasitic, and the ADCL)

James Harrell scripsit: > The obvious major issue, is now that another commercial entity (Netscape) > has the authority to subvert the license. Not that they would, but they > could. Not having this section templated (ie: Insert company name here) > is a show stopper. Am I missing something? If y

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Rick Moen scripsit: > In my experience, the desirability of compromise is situation-dependent. > E.g., if a mugger wants to kill me, but I'd rather live, ending up > half-dead doesn't seem a very equitable outcome. ;-> Two children are squabbling over a piece of cake: A wants it all, B wants to

RE: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

> But the U.S. government can only be sued if the U.S. > government allows it, and it can (and does!) produce public > domain software. And people are allowed to give things away, > even if a lawyer would advise them not to. This is the only really good reason I've heard to state that public do

Re: Compatibility of the ASL and LGPL in the specific case of Java WAS: (Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL)

Hi Brian, Thank you for taking time to reply. The Apache Software Foundation takes a cautious stance on the matter, that says you can't assume that all authors who release code under the LGPL will interpret it to allow the kind of combination you are asking about. If those authors *do* allow it,

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Why not just use the Guile license (GPL plus linking permissions with non-GPL code). Problem solved. http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/guile-ref/Guile-License.html#Guile%20License = Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people!

Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

> Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the > > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs > > on this list to chime in: > > Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that > says that you

RE: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

The Creative Commons document entitled "Public Domain Dedication" is not a license. That document is a "copyright-only dedication." It is up to copyright holders whether to use it, but it is not something that gets approved by OSI. We only review open source licenses. For computer software th

why MPL is hard for other companies to adopt? (was RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL)

Further commercial open source licensing thoughts, subject line changed since this has become a tangent. >> ps: we've looked at MPL and all of the other recommended licenses. I'm >> sure we'll look again. But I'm also sure they each have problems for >> most commercial organizations. > >Perhaps. B

RE: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

You've answered it beautifully. Give this guy a law degree! :-) /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list > > > Quoting David

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Eben Moglen writes: > No, that's not quite right. We do have to resolve one question, which > is whether the effect of the AFL is to pass through the patent- > retaliation provision on code which is relicensed. Larry's taught me not to paraphrase, so let's look at the actual language: Mut

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

> >It really seems you completely miss the point of the OSI! > > I don't think I'm missing the point- > ... > some clauses most commercial entities would like to see in a > license that are specifically excluded by the OSD. So as a > means of finding some common ground Again, you *are* missing the

Re: Compatibility of the ASL and LGPL in the specific case of JavaWAS: (Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL)

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > Since it's the Trove4J folks who would have standing in any case involving > > LGPL-nonconformance, *not* the FSF, it really only matters how the Trove4J > > folks intend the LGPL's language around derivative works and interfaces to > > be interpret

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

On Friday, 14 March 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs > on this list to chime in: Nahhh. None of this is necessary.

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Rick Moen scripsit: > > > To repeat: I see nothing in 17 USC that permits destruction of > > extant copyright title. > > Quite right. But it is a property right, and in general any sort of > property right can be abandoned either with words or with th

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting James Harrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I don't think I'm missing the point- I think that the point (or > perhaps better said, some folks who respond on this list regularly) > has little tolerance for compromise; whereas from my perspective, I'm > looking at making major changes to (one part

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Gunther Schadow scripsit: > Specifically what is the practical difference between LGPL and MPL? A bit of personal history here: when ESR was going to Netscape to discuss with them what license to free Mozilla under, I advised him to advise them to avoid the LGPL. The distinction between a work

RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, James Harrell wrote: > All I know is that the fangs come out whenever this type of > discussion comes up. :) Maybe it's because those of us who've figured out how to build businesses in this space are annoyed by the thesis that it can't be done. Brian -- license-disc

RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

> Would the OSI consider discussing a "Commercial Open Source License" > for "OSI Endorsement" but *not* OSI approval? > In other words, us commercial folks will pull together a license that > is *almost* OSI compliant. And instead of running folks off when they > ask the enevitable, or pointing th

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Brian Behlendorf scripsit: > I don't know of a single IT vendor, save perhaps Microsoft (and even > that's in question) who isn't selling a hardware or software product that > at some point incorporates software licensed under an Open Source license. Do you really think that the Windows ftp.exe c

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > However, you could certainly make an excellent argument that > software that becomes public domain ab initio by statute (e.g., > created directly by USA Federal employees in the scope of their > employment) and that is available in sourc

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

Rick Moen scripsit: > To repeat: I see nothing in 17 USC that permits destruction of > extant copyright title. Quite right. But it is a property right, and in general any sort of property right can be abandoned either with words or with the appropriate actions. (E.g. you have no property righ

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

I think it's worth noting that dedicating a work to the public domain - - however that might be achieved - - often reflects a value judgment by the author to promote unfettered access to information. Although open source, it seems, promotes a similar objective, there are also many additional consid

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson scripsit: You've completely misunderstood the nature of the BSD license. First, commercial parties cannot take source code away any more than they could take water away from an ocean. ... The point is, your [e&e] scenario has never occured. Well, I noticed that I wasn't quite true

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs > on this list to chime in: Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that says that you must use the

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Rod Dixon wrote: > The "public domain" is NOT viewed as synonymous with software licensed > under an open source license. Huh? Neither is "GPL" synonymous with "software licensed under an open source license". As long as you distribute source, public domain meets all of t

Compatibility of the ASL and LGPL in the specific case of Java WAS:(Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL)

Just to keep everyone clear, the "AFL" in this week's discussion is the Academic Free License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/academic.php it is NOT the Apache License. The Apache license as it currently stands is not compatible with the GPL, we recognize this; whether it's compatible with th

RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

>-Original Message- >From: Ralph Mellor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:52 PM > >It really seems you completely miss the point of the OSI! To >quote their home page "Open Source Initiative exists to make >[the open source] case to the commercial world." You may fee

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

The "public domain" is NOT viewed as synonymous with software licensed under an open source license. Rod On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, David A. Wheeler wrote: > Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add "Public Domain" to the > open source software license list at: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.p

Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > > Richard, > > > > Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is > > incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and > > wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file th

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I don't know of a single IT vendor, save perhaps Microsoft (and even > that's in question) who isn't selling a hardware or software product that > at some point incorporates software licensed under an Open Source license. FYI: The Interix division

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

I don't know of a single IT vendor, save perhaps Microsoft (and even that's in question) who isn't selling a hardware or software product that at some point incorporates software licensed under an Open Source license. Microsoft sells GPL software. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

> > I don't know of one business that is making any money selling Open > > Source Software. I don't know of a single IT vendor, save perhaps Microsoft (and even that's in question) who isn't selling a hardware or software product that at some point incorporates software licensed under an Open Sou

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Actually we want 100% the software to be "quasi open source". Feel free. The rest of us will call it proprietary (while pointing out that it's a broad classification, and not intended to be pejorative). ;-> > Yes, that is what I'm trying to do w

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

Quoting David A. Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure there's reasonable consensus on the legal effect of > > declaring one's copyrighted work to be in the public domain. > > I'm not a lawyer, but I talk to them!! I think there _is_ a > reasonable

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

--- Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting David A. Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'm not sure there's reasonable consensus on the legal effect of > declaring one's copyrighted work to be in the public domain. I'm not a lawyer, but I talk to them!! I think there _is_ a reasonable conse

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

> what license should one use (or can a license be created) that > creates a symbiotic relationship between commercial and free > software. An interesting question. (To begin to narrow down the answers, I'll start by noting it's obviously not one that is parasitic.) > Now, I must admit there are

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Ok, I should add the implicit term "or do not distribute". The logic holds. The OSD doesn't "require" businesses to do anything. > Noticed the "now"? You mean _all_ of that inflammatory rhetoric was just your working out that you simply prefer

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

> I > don't know of one business that is making any money selling Open Source > Software. But I do know a tiny handful that are managing to evade > bankruptcy by begging for donations. A few others are actually making a > few bucks selling free beer, but you can count them on one hand with > e

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list - FSF accepts this.

Oh, if it's any help - the Free Software Foundation (FSF) specifically states that "public domain software" meets the Free Software definition (and that they believe it meets the open source definition also). See this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html It would be odd if public domain

RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting James Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > . . . (I agree with everything.) > Perhaps what these commercial entities are seeking is a way to publish > an open source product that: > 1) Protects the commercial investment in developing > the intellectual property of the company > 2) Prov

Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

All that being said, I'd still like an answer. -Andy Rod Dixon wrote: I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS, but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting "David K. Gasaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Chris F Clark wrote: > > > It is a model that preserves some of the attributes of open source > > (most particularly the ability of recipients to receive sources for > > such software at their whim, modify it, and redistribute it). It has > > one

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

--- Bob Doyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, > > Although they target "content" itself rather than source code, you > might > take a look at the several Creative Commons licenses > (http://www.creativecommons.org), including one Public Domain. > > Another similar effort is the Open COnten

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

I forgot to cc my reply to Rick to the list before. - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:42:38 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL To: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PR

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Chris F Clark wrote: It is a model that preserves some of the attributes of open source (most particularly the ability of recipients to receive sources for such software at their whim, modify it, and redistribute it). It has one important and significant difference, of course, the requirement tha

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting James Harrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > It's interesting that when the "not-free" world tries to move in the > direction of the "free" world, there is little or no budge from the > free world to accomodate this. I'm not under the impression that this mailing list is a bargaining table for ha

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

David, Although they target "content" itself rather than source code, you might take a look at the several Creative Commons licenses (http://www.creativecommons.org), including one Public Domain. Another similar effort is the Open COntent License (http://www.opencontent.org/). David A. Wheele

Re: Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

Quoting David A. Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add "Public Domain" to the > open source software license list at: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php I'm not sure there's reasonable consensus on the legal effect of declaring one's copyrighted work to be

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

Hi, On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:01, Chris Gray wrote: > > Have you looked at the Classpath licence? Some historical context. The Classpath libraries were under the LGPL previously. The current license is GPL with a special exception which allows static linking in some case

Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add "Public Domain" to the open source software license list at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php I have several reasons for this request. First, it clarifies the status of public domain software. Some people do not realize that source code in the "publ

RE: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Dear Open Source Friends, This discussion has been quite interesting. I believe it was earlier pointed out that "quite often" a commercial entity comes along and asks this group, what license should one use (or can a license be created) that creates a symbiotic relationship between commercial and

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > and that the OSD's "no discrimination against fields of endeavour" > > clause requires businesses to "either sell to all recipients... or > > give away to all [covered software]". > > > > Speaking for myself, I merely pointed out that these statem

Re: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS, but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to recognize that despite the reputation of lawyers for over-complicating matters, computer scientists seem to suffer from the same affliction. The final q

What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Richard, Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public response. So I think I understand the controvery regardi

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

My I (hopefully humbly) suggest that what MAA (and others like him as the same request for an "open source" license that allows collecting royalties appears regularly and not infrequently) is looking for is a "sligtly" different model. For lack of a better term let me call it the "open royalties"

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Gunther Schadow wrote: > Hi, > > I am looking for an extisting license (or blend / create a new one) > that would be optimal for Java projects that is nice to academic > contributors AND to commercial use. Have you looked at the Classpath licence?

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, David Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 13 March 2003 04:10 am, Chris Gray wrote: > > > > I am also a believer in intellectual property. > > > > The noise you hear is of RMS exploding. ;> > > RMS is a very ardent believer in intellectual property. So much so that > he slaps a co

Re: Optimal license for Java projects ...

David Johnson scripsit: > You've completely misunderstood the nature of the BSD license. First, > commercial parties cannot take source code away any more than they > could take water away from an ocean. It may look like they are, but if > you check, the free source code is still there and the

Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

Quoting Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > I've listened to both sides of the argument. One side says "you can't > > make any money selling Open Source Software" and the other side says > > "yes you can make lots of money selling Open Source Softwa