your work in the public domain, so the next best
thing. Use the BSD or MIT license instead. The only thing they require is to
keep the copyright and warranty disclaimers intact.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
says
if the Sofware is used in a commercial application. Trolltech is
commercially successful with their library, so I suggested that route.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
On Wednesday June 13 2001 01:27 am, John Kane wrote:
Does the paragraph below cleanly revert to the GNU family
of licenses? ...
It sounds like it should work. But why not simply dual license the software
instead?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
. And we didn't
even do that great of a job defending the GPL!
One paragraph could have clammed Mundie up. And that paragraph would have
been something like this:
Intellectual property that Microsoft would have to disclose if they chose to
base the next Windows on Linux: nada.
--
David Johnson
the abacus! Under what license were the
ancient texts written? How far back can you trace the use of code?
Wow! Now that's what I call Artistic License! Hee hee.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
! Checks on power is a negative. Permission to share is a
positive. I would much rather focus on the positive. Open Source is never
having to look over your shoulder.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
, but they quietly use software from a different source
and don't make any stinks.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
best thing. Use the BSD, MIT or similar license. And
if even those are too wordy, then something on the order of All persons are
permitted to use, copy, modify and distribute this work without restriction
should be brief enough.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
circumstances. I think this
objection can be overcome, but it's still something that Debian needs to
think long and hard on.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
This is a test. Please ignore. It seems that messages are not reaching me,
and I am trying to figure out why...
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
the defintion of breaking into two.
It didn't seem misleading to me. The tomsrtbt license is applied to the
*aggregation* of other software.
His updated license clarifies this, and I don't see any OSD problems with it.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
could certainly have
projects that are open but which don't have the above attributes, and you
could have closed source projects that do.
Of course, projects that don't have the above factors would have a higher
"forkability" attribute...
--
David Johnson
__
I currently
distribute my software only as source code under the BSD license, my
creations completely meet every definition of the OSD, and pass with flying
colors. If proposed changes to the OSD would involve decertifying any
software, then toss that proposal out and think of one that works.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
the
binaries. As the original author, you can do whatever you want. You are the
licensor, and do not have to follow the rules of the licensee.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
fact, this is what the FSF does, though not quite so extravagently. Go
price out the GNU Source Code CD-ROM set. Source code only. At $280, I don't
consider that very reasonable. But that's my opinion.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
even after you have paid the megabucks to
get the source code, you still can distribute or modify it.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
. The sources only need to be
available, either with the distribution, or on a website, etc.
Note that the OSD does not require that all incarnations of a package be
Open Source forever until the end of time. It only requires that the copy in
your hands be Open Source.
--
David Johnson
isn't on the OSI list of approved licenses yet, I suspect that
it will be. There is nothing here that I can see that would disqualify it.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
to Covered Code that is Deployed.
...
"1.8 'Personal Use' means use of Covered Code by an individual solely
for his or her personal, private and non-commercial purposes...
Personal use is only *one* kind of private use. Any non-public use is private
use. Including within a company's wa
ering openness"
then public nakedness.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
point, though. Perhaps you could make a distinction between
running the program from a single server within a company, versus passing
around copies between employees?
(*) The Artistic License might be an exception, but it does meet the
definition in letter and spirit.
--
David Johnson
quot;commercial" is specifically used as a criteria in
determining which restrictions and conditions apply. IANAL.
/seriously
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
gave Corel permission to do so.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
t retained by the
author are synonymous with "priviledge".
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
s completely unclear.
Unfortunately, "derivative work" is not too well defined for software under
copyright law either. Other confusing spots in the GPL are the operating
system component , and module clauses. What are the extents of an operating
system? And what i
o then you are under
contract and must abide by those terms. If, on the other hand, you find
yourself in possession of the software through other channels, then you
probably don't have a legal copy anyway.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
it.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
e not
met then the software is not Open Source.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
a registration fee and remain Open Source.
Does this make more sense?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
where the distributor can do one thing but the recipient
cannot. There may be conditions to those rights, but those conditions are the
same for both parties.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
evant. All I have to do is give a copy
to my friend, he gives me a copy back, and I don't have to pay him nor does
he have to pay you. Tada!
However, playing devil's advocate, you could distribute it as normal closed
source shareware, and only offer an Open Source license upon registration...
in half a year trying to figure out some way to
charge for usage of Open Source. Why? Why do you want to charge usage fees
for Open Source Software? Why not stick with a normal shareware license and
be done with it?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
ll copies of your software. And definition #7 says that those I give it
away or sell it to deal directly with me, and not you. So you can't charge
registration fees to third parties.
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep
your software closed source?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
. There
are dozens of software packages that are in no way Open or Free yet allow the
user to modify the software for themselves.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
re is some confusion out there. It's much add to a rationale than to add
to a clause.
(*) Oh, will I catch Hell for that statement...
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
be a very good
idea. But incompatibilities between variants would be a nightmare, much worse
than the current version since it would be all to easy to get the variants
confused.
It's a good idea.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
PL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never
criticized for being incompatible?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
be
too open for their tastes, but it's still open.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
s thinking about how it will
interact with other free licenses.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
free licenses should exist for Free Software.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
loyees may be contributing to my project, the tables may yet turn.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
? Or between "aligning" and "coinciding"?
Assuming you meant the latter...
Coincide means to occupy equivalent positions, while align means to be on the
same line. The first is a location and the latter a direction.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
his Document without specific prior written permission.
This work is a copy of, or based on a copy of, [title], copyright [year] by
[author]. Distribution of, or derivation from, [title] in no way implies
endorsement or warranty by [author].
---
Thanks...
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
sensible.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
sometimes.
Please keep asking your questions here. They are welcome.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
that though, here is a hypothetical... Can you copyright your personal
name in such a way that people could not legally address mail to you?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
to be implementing the same interface.
I don't know CORBA at all, but that sounds like it's at least two inches over
the line labeled "fraud".
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
eral spirit of "only use this particular license
if you value freedom" is irrelevant.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
nor my code are dependant upon the other. Thus,
there would be no joint authorship in the application.
A major patch contribution might be another matter, but in the present
situation there is no need for a copyright assignment. Unless, of course, I
forgot about something.
--
David Johnson
On Thursday 22 February 2001 07:05 am, Brice, Richard wrote:
Here is a link to an archive for this list.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:iis:1:28#b
Thanks for the link. It took a bit of searching, but I found the thread back
in April.
--
David Johnson
___
http
the author is doing is using an API.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
will be interfacing with the operating system.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
, while the idealistic side says that it was
incredibly presumptious even to ask. Was this the legal/ethical thing to do?
And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to
the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada
Thanks,
--
David Johnson
r the distributors are selling something other than the
software (cf Bob Young).
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
have vastly lowered
the cost of producing copies of software. And the public is starting to find
this out. It won't take the closed source industry out of business. But
closed source will have to find new market niches besides the "one size fits
all" niche they'
ot;may not have a cookie
before dinner", take that to mean that he could? In the game of life, one
mother always beats a pair of lawyers.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
, by itself, is not a
crime. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, maybe even more so, but
the Justice Department went about this all the wrong way.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
or any others, *must* be
warrantied. But the disclaimer should be on the packaging instead of inside
it. And the software industry as a whole should start acting like a mature
industry and offer warranties as a matter of course.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
with
warrantees.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
responsibility for. But on the other
hand, without a limit on liability, non-commercial software development would
come to a screeching halt.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
comprised solely of verbal content, then ASCII is sufficient. If you need
some small amount of text formatting, try HTML. And if you need to control
the document's appearance exactly, try PDF.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
On Monday 15 January 2001 11:53 pm, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
Well, yeah! One big implication of using the AFPL instead of the
GPL is "why
should I contribute to your code when I am not allowed to profit
off of it?"
--
David Johnson
You're still _using_ it. Whether you
d to profit off of it?"
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
on I would
mention the (L)GPL, and explain how it affects generated applications.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
an existing license as is, then add an exception
clause afterwards that would not technically be a part of the license, but be
an added permission statement. An example of this would be the Linux kernel.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
in any way. A proprietarized derivitive would
likewise have no effect on the emacs software, though RMS would be upset over
it for other reasons.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
be kept mutually up-to-date.
A very good point. But the document's license doesn't have to be the same as
the application's for the benefit. It can also use a less restrictive license
and achieve the same goal.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
application.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS''
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
. There may be a few additional packages in the ports
collection that have a free-but-don't-sell license (such as rogue).
In all cases, however, you are allowed to give/transfer to CD to someone
else. And you can burn 99% of the CDs and distribute those for money.
--
David Johnson
do with a copyrighted work in the privacy of my own home and own RAM
is no one's business.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
(imagine the next version of GTK+ being under the GPL
license and you're a Mozilla developer).
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
lla.org/.
Can a dual-licensed work be linked to GPL code if one of the licenses is not
compatible with the GPL? This would be a pretty big loophole.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
separate from the license, so
that you don't discourage contributors to your code, who have no desire to be
bound by your promises.
If you don't want a warranty, talk to a lawyer.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
to be derivation of the software, and they can
restrict that. I would disagree with this view, but that's beside the point.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
it
could be a breach of contract. For this reason I am much more amenable to
licenses that solely grant permissions rather than those that impose
restrictions along with the permissions.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
that is theirs to
provide then it will have a very tough time being approped as either OSS or
FS. To translate your wishes another way, you want "to make it difficult for
Redhat to include your software on its distribution".
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
ercial use.
However, the QPL only prohibited closed source and proprietary use. A license
cannot be open source if it contains a blanket prohibition against commercial
use.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
follow it's structure or wording. I would say that the odds of RMS
approving it are pretty good as long as it complies with his Free Software
definition. He might counsel you to use the LGPL instead, but he won't take
you to court over it.
--
David Johnson
___
http
quirement to release modified works free of
charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law where
applicable"
Fair Use is kept deliberately nebulous in law. It would be good if you
explicitely listed some example of Fair Use. How much can I quote in a term
paper before the license kicks
both sides.
Considering that event the authors of NASM can't agree as to the meaning of
clause X, Debian should have kept it under its original license (as demanded
in clause VII).
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
and looking
them up on the archive, it seems that the consensus was that it was
OSS, but incompatible with the GPL. The last point was problematic
since the license claimed to be GPL compatible.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
needs to be figured out
before the project starts. But since it has already started, then it
needs deciding before it gets released.
Wouldn't this approach turn every file into a mess of copyright lines?
In practice, not really. I see lots of attribution and copyright lines,
but they are usual
re allowed to distribute the toolkit and its updates.
If you are the only ones able to distribute the toolkit, I wouldn't
worry too much about other people making changes. It simply won't
happen.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
, I intend for it to go to the needy. I am not giving my food
and medicine freely to the public, but only a few select individuals.
But unlike food and medicine, software cannot be diverted. It can be
copied but not destroyed or hidden.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
y software. Neither of these
viewpoints are correct for everyone.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
and FS
software, the documentation comes under different terms. By including
the documentation in the same license as the software, the licensor is
making it clear that one can also modify and redistribute the
documentation at will.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
. Far
from it! There are other OSS-like licenses for documentation that
should fit your needs. Anything wrong with them that you want to use
this one instead?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
e two items that do not fall under copyright law in
there. The first is that you really want something somewhere
saying that, "Yes, all developers really agreed to our
ground-rules." Doesn't have to be here, I just think it is
a convenient place to put it and avoid paperwork.
Okay, fair enough...
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
the
legal profession.
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
and quirks. As
this nameless person also said, "basing a revenue model on support
encourages software that needs support."
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
by the
user.
Although I don't like how they can terminate usage rights. It would be
much better if only distribution rights were terminated upon license
violation.
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
clarify this (or use an existing license :-) )
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
all make mistakes sometimes :-)
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
begin David Johnson quotation:
The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual
components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's
distribution requirements.
That is correct. I was speaking of the combined work.
I
case, it would also leave out the MPL and QPL users, of which
there is a significant number of the latter.
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
license to the GPL against my wishes
by merely linking my code to a GPL library? I thought (and still
believe) that only the copyright holder can change the license.
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
in
the documentation would be okay, IMHO.
--
David Johnson
_
http://www.usermode.org
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
begin David Johnson quotation:
Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts
to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
distributed under the BSD license?
A licence adheres to a particular _copy_
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to
the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
distributed under the BSD license?
The application without
201 - 300 of 409 matches
Mail list logo
