On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
In general, any "meta-use" of a portion of the source code should be
acceptable, that is, any re-use of a portion of the code whose purpose
is to provide commentary or insight into the original and not replace
the use or function of the original.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
2.To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is a
right reserved to the original copyright holder, and so a license is indeed
required to make one. And this is all provided for under copyright law. In
particular,
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I see a lot of people asking on this list why their licenses are not
being approved.
I have to agree with most if not all of your points. There are getting to be
too many licenses. And most of the ones being submitted are merely minor
modifications
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Chris F Clark wrote:
The list is supposedly part of a process to certify licenses as "open
source". There seems to be no indication that they will ever certify
any new licenses (other than from "very large corporations") as
qualifying. Among the licenses that have not
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Brice, Richard wrote:
The full text of the Alternate Route licenses can be found at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm
One quick comment: in section 5 of the AROSL, at the
On Sun, 05 Dec 1999, Philipp Gühring wrote:
The following quote is from:
http://www.sun.com/981208/scsl/principles.html
"These important differences and other details make Community Source
a powerful combination of the best of the proprietary licensing and
the more contemporary open source
at they do not correspond well to any group at all, other than online
posters.
David Johnson
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
That's the issue in a nutshell. The Free Software movement verges on taking
the position that the only legitimate way for programmers to make money is
to provide services.
I just installed the commercial abiWord word processor yesterday. It
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
and 4) Just sell the software. Enough people will buy it to
support the developers. Yeah, right! Why give $59.95 to AbiSource
when I can get it for $2 from cheapbytes along with everything
else on a Linux distro
401 - 409 of 409 matches
Mail list logo
