[Subject changed from "Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit
about non-copyright issues?"]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
"[...] IBM has an open patent licensing policy under which we are
prepared to licence our patents on a non-discriminatory world-wide
basis. Moreover, IBM licences on
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
> Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI
> battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar
> discussion with IBM?
Well, see
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php
and, p
I am starting to notice a growing number of people who claim that what
makes software Open Source is what *copyright* license agreement it is
licensed under. This is not in fact the case: a program qualifies as Open
Source if the "distribution terms of open-source software must comply with
the
3 matches
Mail list logo