Following all the comments received from this list about a week ago, we've
slightly modified the license. It now stands as follows.
Cluase #2 was changed, and doesn't ask for automatic co-ownership of
changes, but only those submitted for inclusion in central repository.
Would this be more
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three tears, to
give any third party, at no charge, a complete machine-readable copy of
the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
Well, are you
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote:
Cluase #2 was changed, and doesn't ask for automatic co-ownership of
changes, but only those submitted for inclusion in central repository.
Would this be more palatable to this group ?
Is there any additional objection ?
Thank you, I think this is
This version seems fine, given what we were told about the license last
time. I read this license to have the same or similar purpose as the LGPL,
and in that respect section 2(a) seems permissible. It is a slight
restriction that could have a strategic purpose, but the author says the
limitation
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon wrote:
This version seems fine, given what we were told about the license last
time. I read this license to have the same or similar purpose as the LGPL,
and in that respect section 2(a) seems permissible. It is a slight
restriction that could have a strategic
I'm unsure at this time about your comments regarding OSD#6 and 8, but one
thing seems clear to me: one can distribute an application that's
statically link with the library. Such an application would be a 'work
that uses the library', and the only limitation with a binary linked with
library is
Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon wrote:
[ ... ]
Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work, perhaps OSD#6 by limiting
itself to creators of software libraries, and perhaps OSD#8 by being
specific to the product
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
It doesn't even seem close to me. Let me know if I'm insane, or reading
it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open
source.
I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
because the LGPL is a
:
: Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
: OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,
I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
has told us about his purpose. The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense
when you consider its
Hello Mark,
I've just re-read the OSD document, and I'm not sure we read the same
one. You claim that 2a and 2d are unacceptable and violate OSD#3.
OSD#3 is not violated: you can change the code, you can distribute those
modifications. #3 doesn't say that it needs to be completely
unrestricted.
10 matches
Mail list logo
