On 01/27/2017 05:42 AM, David Woolley wrote:
> On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote:
>> Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire*
>> derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you
>> cannot prevent the making of other derivative works under license from
On 01/18/2017 02:00 PM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
>> have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the
>> corresponding web pa
On 01/18/2017 10:33 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each
> source code file with:
AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the
On 01/18/2017 08:50 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> On 18/01/2017 16:17, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> compatible licenses like BSD and MIT, the easiest thing to do is to
>> acknowledge their existence in one place (e.g., NOTICE or COPYING file),
>> under a general "this Softw
On 01/18/2017 04:20 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> The only annoying part when mixing two of them together is that you
> must still correctly retain the license for each piece of code. So the
> source code file that was originally BSD licensed must retain the BSD
> license in its header, and likewise
On 12/12/2016 10:05 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
>> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
>
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote:
The sticky point is this:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Zak Greant wrote:
The idea of being able to draw a clear line between derivative and
collective works based on treating the Program as a black box with
hooks for connectivity makes me very uncomfortable.
Why does it make you very uncomfortable?
It is generally a
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
On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most you can do is to make further releases of your software
proprietary, which does expose you to the risk that a competitor
will arise who will make further improvements to the old releases
and distribute them under the old license or some
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is
most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to
release the sources of your software (and allow modification?),
Release
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the
open-source specification is so rigid.
I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much
sense.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I personally think it is to nobody's advantage to permit this term
to be twisted to the point where it can be used to describe software
which may not be redistributed freely.
It is not clear to me whether the term is twisted by adding
restrictions
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is
going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a
problem?
Sure it is. Software writers spend more time selecting among mostly
identical licenses and software users spend more
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle:
lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because
how could they justify their fees then?
I am sure that's a part of the problem. However, I am curious how many
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to
build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going
to see yet another fragmentation here?
What makes you think there isn't already active
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Alex.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
Enterprise Source License and OEM Source License.
I am guessing these are Gluecode-invented names. I have
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess. I do not see a direct answer to your question
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license
provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this
license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, items that link
with the Software, items that link with
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the
editor was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I
would think.
Agreed. My concern is not about the user of the editor, but about the
author of the editor. It seems odd to
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an
program to work with another program but the source code is not
released because it is argued that the new program is not derived
from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
Whole or partial distribution of the Software, *items that link
with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software,
or* items that interact with any portion of the Software to form an
extended version of the Software signifies
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:
(2) undertaking software development in a collaborative fashion so
that contributors are encouraged to find, document and fix defects;
Contributors to closed source software also collaborate
This is my last response. IMO, this is not the right place to discuss
moral issues related to Copyleft/BSD licensing.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Russell McOrmond wrote:
When people make non-free derivatives they are taking from me
without paying in the same way as software pirates are
claimed
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
How does a copyleft provision either help or hurt these objectives?
The way I like to think of it (personal opinion only!) is that:
- copyleft ensures the *code* always stays free (maximizing the
original author and end-users freedom)
- BSD/AFL
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Larry Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The project has an API that other developers can use to create
these modules/pluggins so they work within the framework of the
project. Questions and many comments have been raised as to how
the
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If there's only one library in existence that implements the API,
then you _must_ have used that library.
Technically, no. I do not _have to_ use any library to make a
dynamically linked executable. For example, I develop open source
software that
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a
GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In
such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to
avoid having to link to such
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The issue I see is that your software requires that particular
GPL-licensed library to run. Normally, you would supply your
software together with that library (dynamically linked). Now, for
the sole reason to avoid having to comply with the GPL,
Chris,
Let me offer a simpler non-lawyer and non-legal advice. I
will try to state it so that there are no (or fewer) gray areas :-).
Please interpret the three clauses below as a whole.
0) Interface (a published API) is not copyrightable and,
hence, cannot be a viral
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the
rule is
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,:
snip
The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain.
Creative Commons public domain dedication follows
If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As can be seen form the comments, the problem is clause 3:
3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within
this software (TESTNAME, TESTNAME) must either strictly
adhere to the execution rules for such tests
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Assuming I did not, let me replace derived products with derived
works since product is difficult to define. I will also explicitly
include published test results in the derived works. A published
test result
I use Creative Commons public domain dedication[1] for some of the
software I author. I am concerned that some people believe that it is
impossible to permanently and/or reliably place software in public
domain in some countries. It appears that while Creative Commons
public domain dedication
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
Alex Rousskov writes:
- If NASA wants to kindly ask users to register, license is
not the right place to do that. NASA should change the
license before OSI approves it (a simple quality control
issue)
On the other hand
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I post my response because so many times on this list people try to
play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not
appropriate
Richard,
Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines?
You seem to imply that only
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have
something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to
clarify what rights are transferred to the end user.
... and since the user is often not a lawyer, those who write licenses
should try to strike a balance
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I would rather know that more details about the product's use are
being tracked than not. When a company tracks the usage of their
product they have an easier time gaining support from onlookers,
which is good for the product.
I want to write
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Bryan Geurts wrote:
1H. Recipient means anyone who acquires the Subject Software under
this Agreement, including all Contributors.
1M. Use means the application or employment of the Subject
Software for any purpose.
3F. In an effort to track usage and maintain
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is
the effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the
draft NOSA requests rather than requires users to register with
NASA.
If the intent is to show an effort, the
Daniel,
Could you please clarify for a non-lawyer where you see the
Public domain mistake here (the Subject of your message)?
If my understanding is correct, you are saying that if a permissible
open source license agreement is not enforceable then the source code
is in public domain for
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
daniel wallace scripsit:
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
modifying a standard benchmark while publishing results under
now-misleading standardized names. Please clarify which existing
approved open source license meets our (clause #3) needs nicely. I
would love to use an existing license!
Thank you,
Alex.
- Original Message -
From: Alex Rousskov
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
it is not apparent - - not to me, at least - - why it is included in
your software license.
Clause #3 is included to prevent serious violations and cheating when
publishing standardized test results. Such publications often hurt
OWNERs and
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
The issue I see for the Open Test License v1.1 is with regard to the
provision containing the third condition. This may not be strictly
an OSD problem, but, it is not clear to me how condition three is
triggered.
The only way to violate
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
: 3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within
:this software (TESTNAME, TESTNAME) must either strictly
:adhere to the execution rules for such tests or be accompanied
:by explicit prior written permission of
Dear all,
Please discuss a license that we would like to use for at
least one of our testing tools (http://www.web-polygraph.org/). Since
there are many testing tools being developed, we tried to make a more
general license template for others to enjoy and improve. The text of
the license
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, David Presotto wrote:
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least.
...
to be most useful to the rest of the company, we need to let our
code also be mixable with proprietary stuff in the company. We could
do lots of bookkeeping to separate what we wrote from
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public domain in the U.S.
The [U.S.] law is based on prior cases and/or changing interpretation,
so nothing can be 100% clear. However, Creative Commons, O'Reilly, and
other
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
In any event, note that the page doesn't (even at that) assert that such
a declaration is legally effective.
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
The real problem is of course that copyright is a statutory right
and like all statutory rights cannot be abandoned
Wow. Looks like you are saying that we have something that expires or
disappears after X years, but cannot be forced (accelerated)
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or
somebody should
Hi,
I am looking for an OSI-certified, short, permissive,
non-viral, MIT/BSD/Apache-style license with the Integrity of The
Author's Source Code clause[1] that prohibits source-code from being
distributed in modified form (except for patches and such).
Does such a beast exist?
58 matches
Mail list logo
