Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Is that a distinction without a difference? Or should we assert that
> licenses of the form "don't use that license" are contrary to the OSD
> because they discriminate?
I think that it is a distinction without a difference. You could as well
say that the GPL discr
Sean Chittenden writes:
> Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it
> in proprietary products.
But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it?
> The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
> ensure that any work on the module
> I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been
> busy.
No prob, life happens: I sympathize.
> I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license:
>
> 4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction
>with any software license that requi
I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been busy.
I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license:
4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction
with any software license that requires disclosure of source
code (ex: the GNU Publ
New thread -- was "RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License"
> John Cowan wrote:
> > The AFL says that if you sue the author of an AFL-licensed piece of
> > software under a software patent claim (related or not),
> you lose all
> > rights to that software.
Arnoud Engelfreit res
> > > What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
> > > code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
> > > say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
> >
> > Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
> > ch
> > I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them
> > proprietary. More correctly. In my own context, I want to be
> > able to use the fruits of my labor. The contributions that I seek
> > are from other widget makers using the same tool for their widget.
>
> In that case, a "commun
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
> > code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
> > say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
>
> Changes made to the BSD code by the au
John Cowan wrote:
> The AFL says that if you sue the author of an AFL-licensed piece of
> software under a software patent claim (related or not), you lose all
> rights to that software.
Actually it goes much further. If you sue any author of any AFL-
licensed software for patent infringement, you
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> The latest version of the AFL has a different patent termination clause.
Sorry, I forgot that.
> I suggested to a client recently that they get
> around any issue of GPL incompatibility by simply waiving any such
> incompatibility as an additional licensing statem
Sean Chittenden scripsit:
> > It so happens that my latest piece of free software was issued under
> > the Academic Free License. I wound up dual-licensing it under the
> > GPL because the AFL's patent poison-pill is GPL-incompatible.
>
> AFL patent poison-pill? -sc
The AFL says that if you su
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them proprietary.
> More correctly. In my own context, I want to be able to use the
> fruits of my labor. The contributions that I seek are from other
> widget makers using the same tool for their widget.
In that case,
> > > Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and
> > > I recommend that the OSI approve it.
> >
> > Are you apart of the approval process? *doesn't remember reading
> > that part*
>
> As an individual, no; as a member of this list, yes.
Ah, ok... didn't know if you had spe
> > Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
> > likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad
> > thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I
> > want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing
> > someone else's wheel d
> >>>The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
> >>
> >>Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
> >>Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
> >>ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core
> >>parts are most likely
> > > The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
> >
> > Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
> > Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
> > ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core
> > parts are most
16 matches
Mail list logo
