I hear what you're saying. Let me add that I hope no one picks a license
on
the sole basis of simplicity as well. Meet your needs.
This is exactly why my organization has created, and proposed for adoption,
the Alternate Route Open Source Licenses
Here is a link to an archive for this list.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:iis:1:28#b
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Assigning copyright
Since I can't locate
For that matter, the Alternate Route Open Source License and the Alternate
Route Library Open Source License are very similar to the GPL and LGPL
license. In fact, the FSF has given the Washington State Department of
Transportation permission to base our license on theirs. We have been
waiting
I've seen may requests for OSI license certification over the past year. I
would be helpful if you could publish a list of licenses pending review, and
their priority, so those of us that have submitted a license can know where
it is in the process.
Richard Brice
WSDOT
-Original
It is my understanding that State government is not bound by the same
"public domain" requirements as the Federal government in 17 USC 105. That
is, because States are not explicitly included in the exclusions of who can
hold copyrights, States have the right to copyright their works.
Given
Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software
written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think
we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it.
I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make government more
e denied the
maximum benefit of their investment.
-Original Message-
From: Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:26 AM
To: Brice, Richard; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: Should governmnet sof
Source license to it. I thought that info might be
relevant or at least give you a better picture of where I'm coming from.
-Original Message-
From: Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 11:05 AM
To: Brice, Richard
I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far
I respectfully request the Alternate Route Open Source Licenses be approved
for use with the OSI Open Source certification mark.
This is a re-submittal from 10/29/1999. No discussion or action has taken
place on this request so I though I would re-post.
One outstanding question from the last
After engaging in discussions with the Free Software Foundation, we have
made some minor modifications to the Alternate Route Open Source License and
the Alternate Route Library Open Source License.
The licenses are now acceptable to the Free Software Foundation and WSDOT
has been granted
After engaging in discussions with the Free Software Foundation, we have
made some minor modifications to the Alternate Route Open Source License and
the Alternate Route Library Open Source License.
The licenses are now acceptable to the Free Software Foundation and WSDOT
has been granted
I too must voice my concern about the OSI Certification Process. In
September of this year, I requested that two licenses be given OSI
Certification (Alternate Route Open Source License and Alternate Route
Library Open Source License). These licenses are very, very similar to the
GPL and LGPL.
13 matches
Mail list logo
