Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade.
That your SDC licence plainly is proprietary.
The SDC Conditions v. 2 breach exactly clause 6 of the OSD (*). If
proprietary is the right term to describe (informally) a 9/10 open
source license, then OK, the SDC Conditions v. 2 are
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if
you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having
to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay
the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
BTW, that's a technicality that I believe can be solved. That is, it is
possible to revise the SDC Conditions, or make a new license, that does
not breach clause 6, and still implements the SDC philosophy--which is
NOT proprietary.
We'll be
The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to
distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction.
Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under
the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions?
--
license-discuss archive is at
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if
you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having
to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to
distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction.
Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under
the same license (GPL) not
The intent of OSD (it seems to me) has always been to describe via a few
easily-grasped practical guidelines the underlying core concept of open
source -- loosely speaking, access to source code with the perpetual
right to freely use, redistribute, or fork the codebase (or create
derivative works
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any
generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want).
Hmm. Remember, the primary conceptual concerns of the OSD are the
long-term freedoms of developers and users. OSD #2
Requiring royalties for use of the software after lawful
aquisition is probably not even possible legally...
In that case it is indeed an unsurmountable problem. But in my opinion
still merely technical. I don't see it hurting any spirit. On the
contrary, to me it's very clear that rewarding the
Dear All,
The OSI and FSF seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a
derivative work under GPL and would thus have to be licensed under GPL as
well. For example, Lawrence Rosen for OSI says that simply combining something
with the work isn't a derivative work
Dear All,
There seemed to be a great debate a few years back regarding whether a company
could augment GPL software for its own, private use and never release any
modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes,
GPL does allow that (doesn't bode well for dual
Marius Amado Alves scripsit:
Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under
the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions?
In addition to the reasons mentioned by others, there is also the fact
that the GPL, BSD, Artistic, and MIT licenses are *prior* to the OSD
Marius:
You might want to consider a proper dual license rather than your semi-open
license. The AFPL which is not an OSI-certified license might fit the bill for
the open part: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm, since it
limits commercial use. On the other hand, downstream sharing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All,
There seemed to be a great debate a few years back regarding whether a company
could augment GPL software for its own, private use and never release any
modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes,
GPL does allow that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
boost (http://www.boost.org/) or even portions of GNU libstdc++?
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64361.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64381.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64388.php
boost-ly y'rs,
regards,
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any
generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should
be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence
unhurtful of them, but I'm having technical
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You said provided free of charge.
The GPL says licensed free of charge.
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will
come to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself)
It didn't come in my sleep.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
The OSI and FSF seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a
derivative work under GPL and would thus have to be licensed under
GPL as well. For example, Lawrence Rosen for OSI says that simply
combining something with the work isn't a derivative work
A private correspondent wrote to me, expressing astonishment at the notion
that the OSD might be changed simply because one of the major powers
(meaning, as I suppose, the GPL) was found not to be conformant with
its terms, whereas wannabe compliant licenses are made to conform to
the OSD. I like
Ian, you've been most helpful, and it's a pity you thing I'm trolling
now. My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the
case of open source). You have not contested this. But it's ok. I'm not
trolling, but I'm not making a big issue of it either. Let it be.
--
You might want to consider a proper dual license rather than your semi-open
license.
This is one thing we're considering, yes.
The AFPL which is not an OSI-certified license might fit the bill for
the open part: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm, since it
limits commercial use. On
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:57:31AM -0500,:
modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems
to be: yes, GPL does allow that
Yes, it does.
For example, Trolltech seems to take a severe view of distribution in GPL,
possibly because their old QPL
I can only give you a partial non-legal answer/opinion: C++ template
definitions are equivalent to libraries as far as derivative work is
concerned. Using such template definitions is the same as using a
software library. In other words, there is nothing special about C++
template definitions
EP == Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EP So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
EP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
EP I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source
EP Definition: the Attribution license:
EP
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
At this point I'm starting to doubt the value of this conversation.
You seem to be frequently misunderstanding what to me seems like plain
English. Is this a language problem? Or are you just trolling?
Marius's native language is almost
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There seemed to be a great debate a few years back regarding whether a company
could augment GPL software for its own, private use and never release any
modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes,
GPL does allow
1. While I think I understand the intent, your HTML version just
feels wrong:
http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm;
One, despite the disclaimers, it looks like a sleazy attempt to pretend
compliance. I know you didn't mean that, but it just looks bad.
More to the point, that web
Dear Larry,
I have changed the site and appended my exchange with Ernst from
yesterday which he graciously acknowledged back to me. I'm not sure if
it made it to the license-discuss list, but please post on my behalf if
it is a closed list.
Again, please accept my sincere apologies regarding my
Dear Rod,
You make a fair point as university trademarks are protected by
definition whether someone is trying to appropriate them on baseball
caps or in software. This was a key point in reaching agreement among
the four university legal offices as they wanted the extra notice
explicitly
Chris F Clark scripsit:
What part of OSD#6 prevents someone for charging to license the
software to one group and give the software away for free to another
as long as the same open source license is made available to both?
I'd say it complies.
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:
Ian, you've been most helpful, and it's a pity you thing I'm trolling
now. My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the
case of open source). You have not contested this. But it's ok. I'm not
trolling, but I'm not making a
Hello,
OSI has a nice clear list of licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses/
How do I know if a license is compatible with an other?
For example, I understand that I may use LGPL code in a GPL application.
However, I may not use GPL code in a LGPL application. How about the PHP
license? Apache?
hi ya marc
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marc Laporte wrote:
Hello,
OSI has a nice clear list of licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses/
How do I know if a license is compatible with an other?
For example, I understand that I may use LGPL code in a GPL application.
However, I may not use
Dear all,
The discussion has been very enlightening. Some other wrinkles I thought of:
As the author of a work, I am free to license it as I will, even offering it under 2
or more licenses. Similarly I can require all contributors to allow me to do the same
thing.
Now:
1. Can I simply write
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote:
3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative
of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean
that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back
to you under your dual license, I cannot then
No Spam scripsit:
1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't
pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this,
you can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)?
Sure.
2. I'm not interested in the complexities of collecting sublicensing
and
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit:
AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only*
GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all*
contributors agree to it.
In fact, if you register your version with the Copyright Office and the
contributor does not, you can
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't
pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this, you
can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)?
I don't see why not. It's reasonably common to let recipients
John Cowan, et. al.:
I want to let people pay to opt out from reciprocity. However having paid to do so,
and they receive the software under a permissive license, they can then re-release the
software under any sort of license including a permissive license. Then a third party
could use the
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote:
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit:
AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only*
GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all*
contributors agree to it.
In fact, if you register your version with the Copyright
40 matches
Mail list logo
