On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:07, Russell McOrmond wrote:
This is quickly off-topic for this list again. I wonder if there needs
to be an @opensource.org discussion group for discussing the business
model and legal analysis of license agreements beyond the question of
approving them as OSI
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan 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.
The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software
because of patent
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less
restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without
the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The
Maybe I am missing something, but
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 21:29, Daniel Carrera wrote:
I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the
GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects.
As much as we, in this forum, would like to believe that licensing
is a prime motivator, empirical data
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 17:44, Daniel Carrera wrote:
In practical terms, how is the LGPL license different from the BSD?
The article Working Without Copyleft deals explictly with this topic
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
--
license-discuss archive is at
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote:
As I kinda guessed before I read this article, it's basically about
freedom for software developers. The GPL is basically about freedom
for people who aren't software developers. That's why *I* use it.
It was not my intention to start a
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 19:09, John Cowan wrote:
David Presotto scripsit:
As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if
source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive
license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this
David Johnson wrote:
My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled
from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very
subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD.
I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the source
code is
Henry Pijffers wrote:
However, suppose big US company didn't register to do business
anywhere in Europe, and just licensed some open source software to
me through the Internet, and later decides to change their mind, then
how can I defend my rights on anything I did with their software
Alexandre,
The license used by Bounty Castle is the MIT license, which is already
known to be GPL compatible.
Having said that, the appropriate organization to ask about GPL
compatibility is Free Software Foundation, so you may want to verify
with them.
[1]
Andy Tai wrote:
Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a
grandiose fashion. Academic Free License and Open
Software License. These give the impression that
such licenses are official or superior in some way, as
endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are
better named (for
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
You can't run most source code. You must compile it, which is
preparing a derivative work.
Not quite...
[T]he U.S. Copyright Office has traditionally taken the view that object
code is not a derivative work of source code. Instead, the Copyright
Officers
Bruce Dodson wrote:
disclaimers appear in supporting documentation. When you
distribute this software outside your organization, the source
code (including any modifications) must be made available to the
recipients under these license terms.
You have not defined the copyleft
Andy Tai wrote:
Free software means a well defined set of software.
Yes, to most English-speaking people it means software that
is free of cost (i.e. gratis).
Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
community.
Following your own
John Cowan wrote:
AFAIK the free software community has always understood the right
to distribute modifications to be implied by this license, but
of course (as usual) no court has spoken, and so nobody can say
for sure. RMS is being cautious, that's all.
Then what differentiates the right
[ Apologies if multiple copies were sent -- mail server problems ]
Michael Beck wrote:
I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that inheritance is considered
^^^
modifying the library (see below). My question was related to releasing code
[...]
16 matches
Mail list logo
