treatment of the exercises presented in X ??
Y could not exist without X - the prior publication.
Yet copyright AFAIK treats it as an independent work.
Certainly as long is it is being distributed as a separate
volume.
Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm
- Original Message -
From: Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Me:
Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any
must in your 3.
Abe:
-- I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your
modifications private. The base line is: either keep
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any group should be able to share
modifications among themselves without the outside world (including the
original author) being aware of it.
-- I do not regard open-source as a one-sided mirror - if it is
to work at all,
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would offer the recipients of my software
three choices:
1) make no modifications.
2) make mods and keep them private
3) make mods and publish to the public, either by publishing
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The biggest point in this whole discussion is this simple
fact: if I do not insert either a must-publish or a must-supply
clause in my license they can (and probably will) claim that
their source is
regards, Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
are deemed to violate the OSD, then it must be a matter of
wording, not of principles.
-Chris Clark
Again, a personal request: Please do not send me personal copies
-- Check
Kind regards, Abe Kornelis
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris F Clark scripsit:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.
The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be
*think* the latter option is looked upon relatively
favorably - assuming the silent majority agrees with the
discussion so far.
Please feel invited to share your comments.
Kind regards, Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
Not wanting to compromise
the relation with their software supplier being one fairly
good reason, habitual secretiveness another one,
and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable
by their own customers as yet another
John,
thanks again, and once more please find my comments inserted below.
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
you must supply changes in source form to people who
John,
thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted
in between your text.
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm)
currently has both - which is definitely an overkill,
even though it grants users
Bennett,
thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted
in between your tecxt.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2003-03-05T14:34:23 John Cowan:
The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
you must supply changes in source
of the license proposal on our site:
http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm
Thanks for your attention, Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
and the U.S.
-- Does 'practicing' imply that you are still in your apprenticeship ;-)
(Sorry, couln't resist the bait)
Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
on the
subject.
Kind regards, Abe Kornelis.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
.
So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license.
Kind Regards, Abe.
==
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Abe Kornelis' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: BXAPL - request for comments
Did you
done our best to make
the license text understandable by supplying an explanation
and an abridged version by way of quick reference.
Thank you all in advance for your time and effort.
Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis.
==
Differences between versions 0.H and 0.J
Dear all,
With Nathan Kelley I have had a discussion, that has
halfway turned private, i.e. we both forgot to cc the
list. Since Nathan agreed with me that it would be a
good idea to let you all in on the discussion, I have
made a surmise of the various mails that have not
yet been on this list,
From: Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
Abe Kornelius wrote, in part:
It was intended that Distributor designate anyone who redistributes
the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own. This would include
the Copyright Holder.
A Contributor was intended
I just noticed I sent this reply without cc-ing the mailing list :-(
Therefore now resending with apologies.
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
thusly:
Contributor:
Any Distributor
And yet another that should have been cc-ed to the list.
Shame on me, isn't it? Once again I apologize.
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The definition of User is too broad. It allows any
Distributor to force someone to be a User simply by
sending them
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Abe Kornelis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
Approval request snipped
I have
- Original Message -
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very
Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
finally I'm settling for BSD and I will have to get back to
FSF for GPL compatibility certification.
-- BSD allows redistribution of binaries without making
the source(s) available. Is that what you want?
Regards, Abe.
--
Abe F. Kornelis, B.V. Bixoft
Het
Hello all,
Best wishes for the new year to all of you.
I have noticed that various OSI-approved licenses
exclude the United Nations Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods.
First question: why would anyone want to exclude
a supranational regulation. I'd suppose such
Paul Guyot wrote:
- The text contains a large number of diacriticals
(in the french sections). Though I liked the
bilingual version, my browser died while trying
to print it. Please consider using egrave;
eacute; etc. for the characters with diacritics.
Both versions are
Paul Guyot wrote:
The idea of applying the license to itself seems
a clever one, but is incompatible with allowing
modifications to the licensed work.
I wonder why. Could you please develop, either regarding Draft 1
(always interesting) or the newer Draft 2?
--
Paul,
If modifications
Paul Guyot wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to get the Kallisys Reflexive License (KRL) approved by
the Open Source Initiative.
--
Paul,
I did a quick read of your license and found
nothing that will let me modify the licensed code.
I don't know if modifiability is required by the
OSD, but it
Russell Nelson wrote:
Abe Kornelis writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please review this license. If you do so promptly enough, we may
be able to include it in tomorrow's board meeting. -russ ]
--
This raises some questions. We recently had a lengthy discussion
Julian Hall wrote:
Following comments I received on version 1.0 of the DSPL, I have
prepared a revision for submission for approval.
I look forward to receiving your comments!
--
Julian,
Just a personal remark: I would feel very hesitant to contribute
software under this license, since it
Hello all,
I've been reading the Motosoto Open Source License.
The following details struck me:
1) the derivation from JOSL is apparent, but
somehow Motosoto managed to garble the
paragraph numbers. Not a real disaster,
just inconvenient.
2) In the paragraph numbered 5, Motosoto
Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
Not to be sarcastic, but good luck trying to delineate commercial from non.
-- There's a relatively easy way around that one: the usual commercial
distributors guard their source code as their own holy grail.
So the Open Source License would be applicable to
Hello all,
I have a question regarding contamination.
English is not my native language, I'm trying
to avoid misunderstanding the OSI concepts.
I have a macro library that I would release
under an open source license. I want everyone
to be able to use and/or enhance the macros
in the library
34 matches
Mail list logo
