From: Carlo Wood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Selling closed source plugins wouldn't be illegal anyway,
but wouldn't it be illegal for the buyers to link the bought
plugins with the GPL-ed opensource? If so then that means that
My impression was that the FSF only really cared about
From: Greg Herlein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you
want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open
source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and
derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for
From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
used in a commercial application ?
[DJW:]
Allow: yes. Require: I believe not.
In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the
software, but you cannot
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Now, again, as I read it, if I provide an http or ftp directory, which
contains 10 files, and one of those has all the licenses, and one is the
tarball that makes the floppy, and one is an html file that clearly lists
both and explains what they
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
* no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component
parts *
* such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which apply to practically
everything!!! *
It seems to me to mislead as to the copyright ownership, mislead
as to the rights
From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I hope this is not the case. I wouldn't like Microsoft to have the ability
to suppress WINE because it uses the Windows API.
[DJW:] They are attempting to achieve something
similar for MS Office products. The MSDN Library
licence forbids the use
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
hypocrisy. As the open source community has long since proven repeatedly,
particularly with its contributions to Internet-related software, the
enforcement of appropriate standards can be encouraged and achieved
without
recourse to
From: August Zajonc [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Note: If this has been covered before, I'd be happy for a pointer to the
proper list thread or FAQ.
[DJW:]
This is GPL specific, so ought to be asked on the USENET
gnu.misc.discuss (?) group.
Powered by MyCoolSoftware
From: Frank LaMonica [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I agree with you completely. BSD is one of the only software licenses
that allows PEOPLE the freedom they need to establish their own business
objectives. I would go even further to say that there are only three
[DJW:]
There are different
From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license
must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms"
instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...".
[DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL is
From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
source products, but only if the result becomes open source after
a time delay, say 3-5 years. This is plenty of time for a company
to gain revenue from the sale value of software, and should
[DJW:]
That sort of time figure agrees with my idea as
From: John Cowan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a
transfer must be in writing and signed by the
developer.
[DJW:] The Free Software Foundations
assignment form, quoted recently,
appears to be in the form of a
From: Toon Knapen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Do you mean that, if you release your work under
the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically
the copyright owner ?
[DJW:] Gnu is not the same as GPLed. Gnu
is things like GCC, not things like the Linux
kernel.
As I already mentioned,
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The function prototypes in header files almost certainly cannot be
copyrighted, thus there's no point in licensing their use. In fact, you
can
almost always call an exported function by ordinal number, thus I wouldn't
even have to include the
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Is the argument that a run-time link to external code creates a derivative
work (in the sense that the copyright statutes define a derivative work)
of
[DJW:]
I don't think so. It think the argument is about taking
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Interesting point. In the ordinary course of programming, I suspect there
would be no derivative work created, hence the GPL should provide no
obstacle for distributing the program as open source. As you mentioned,
[DJW:] In
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load
and
link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not
that
DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program
ever
From: Chloe Hoffman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Predatory pricing is the act of someone with market power selling
something
below the marginal cost thereof with the primary intent to drive out
[DJW:] The marginal cost of software is very low, which is
why this issue arises in the first
Forutnately for us Europeans, that doesn't apply here - software and
algorithms are, IIUC, non-patentable in Europe. IANAL
[DJW:] The recent UK government consultation paper++ on
the possibility of introducing US like software patents
said that European law allowed software patents where
From: Richard Boulton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
[DJW:]
The GPL is
From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The rest of the world does provide these automatic warranties, but we at
least let intelligent people bargain them out of a contract. Why should I
be forced to pay for a warranty I don't want or need?
[DJW:] I seem to remember
From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office
can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and
multi-platform.
[DJW:] There are royalty free and "open source" tools for
creating and viewing PDF, from
From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two
different legal documents are functionally equivalent?
[DJW:] As I understand it, they are determining
whether the licence is a member of the set of
possible "open
From: Ralf Schwoebel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL
says you MUST,
I can not see why the OSI should not accept that?
[DJW:] In typical compliance language, SHALL is the most strict
level of compliance. I'd normally treat
From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[DJW:] IANAL
Under current copyright law, reproducing a similar concept, even using
different language, would be a violation once I've been exposed to the
[DJW:] Are you sure of this. I thought that this
was one of the
From: Andrew J Bromage [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I would think that it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the output
of a compiler is a derivative work of (or "work based on") the compiler
or any standard libraries that must be provided as part of a conforming
[DJW:] The FSF
From: William Abernathy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for
which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the
authors of the Software. The authors
Apologies for sending this on list, but attempts to
communicate using a guessed list owner address failed
but didn't bounce and the ISP that is the target of
the relevant MX records says they are no longer customers
and disclaims responsiblity.
Ever since I subscribed to the list, every posting
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Really??? What was wrong with it - I did it all by hand, so I thought it
wouldn't have any weirdness
[DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial
use
(I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes
The GPL encourages commercial use (I may be wrong, but
I have a feeling that the OSI rules
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial
use
of our toolkit?
[DJW:] No. You can ask a fee for the supply of the
recorded media and for support, but you cannot
charge for the licence itself. You can even
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
[DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an
exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their
intended purpose
The mailing list help tells me how to retrieve a
numbered message fromt the archive, but not how
to search the archive.
How does one do it?
--
--- DISCLAIMER -
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
33 matches
Mail list logo
