Sean Chittenden said on Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:07:51PM -0700,:
I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex:
the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the
discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh*
On the contrary, the words in
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet responded:
Actually it goes much further. If you sue any author of any
AFL- licensed software for patent infringement, you lose all rights
to *all* AFL-licensed software, as well as all rights to all
other software with that same poison pill
This sounds like a question for the Free Software Business mailing
list, rather than the open source initiative license approval
committee. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the submission address;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the subscription address.
-russ
James McGovern writes:
My employer has asked me to
Sean Chittenden writes:
Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software
developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which
goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL.
Neither does the OSSAL. Anybody can make changes to OSSAL-licensed
code and not
Mike Wattier writes:
The OSI is a political organization
yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to
support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly
becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL.
Not really. The GPL is legally troubled. It attempts
Brian Behlendorf writes:
It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that
each user pay the copyright holder for use.
You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay
the copyright holder when they get the software from the copyright
holder. It
David Presotto scripsit:
As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if
source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive
license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.''
Then Sean would always have access to
Sean Chittenden writes:
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that
the module author can do is release the module under business friendly
terms. If someone writes a module for my lang but
Sean Chittenden 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 authors of the
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
changes that are available only under the GPL.
Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary
product are changes that are only available to the authors
10 matches
Mail list logo
