On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 12:04 a, Russell Nelson wrote:
Hrm. I think that the GPL was simply acclaimed as an Open Source
license. I'm not sure it actually qualifies as such, now that I see
this note. OSD#3 says that the license must allow modifications. We
have always interpreted
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote:
the basic ideas are as follows:
APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
* the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or
Pronoic Ltd.
This is not a difference. Neither the name of
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:43 p, dave sag wrote:
I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as
possible and are acting more as a review board than an
accreditation board.
We are neither. We are a discussion board.
The discussion tends towards, another!?!?
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
Will be rejected when approval is asked will be rejected when approval
is asked.
Is OK as long as you don't want our stamp of
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 12:46 p, David Blevins wrote:
(I dislike seeing copyrights on licenses anyway. It implies that
someone modifying the license needs approval...which means that OpenE
needs approval from Apache groupDid they get it? Does OpenE
want to be bothered when
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 06:31 p, Russell Nelson wrote:
I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these
licenses:
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-
cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk
Identical to the Apache Software License... assuming that
description is
(My addressbook appears to be acting up, so I *think* this message
only went to license-discuss-subscribe... hopefully you haven't
seen this message yet)
Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts. While fonts are
clearly not part of the program if distributed separately, it is
difficult
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:22 p, Cees de Groot wrote:
Thanks, Russ - I was about to whine myself about the lack of
commentary of the above one (the Squeak License). The webpages
'promise' a review when you post the license, but all I got back
was a private mail from Guido with
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 08:03 p, David Johnson wrote:
I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses
informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval.
It is. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that a license
was recently tabled because there was
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 08:25 p, Cees de Groot wrote:
Matthew C. Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts.
It's not, for two reasons: the fonts are bitmap fonts, and since
the Squeak
License was written they have been shown
On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 08:29 p, Topper, Anthony wrote:
We understand the desire to have one Common Public License with
no messy
variations. We think it is an excellent license, hence our desire
for our own small variation of it. The issue that had our
attorney's concerned was
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
BSD allows other to fork your code, extend and embrace it and never ever
compensate you for anything (see the case of microsoft's ftp client, for
instance) if they so wish.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Put another way, the BSD license
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Intel can't solve those problems but it should be commended for doing
what it can (even if it isn't doing everything that we think
possible).
Yes. Although my one response to this was in the negative, I *do*
think it's great that Intel is trying.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Stamnes, Michelle wrote:
Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in
Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software
(in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent
license; so you are no worse off than with
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Tina Gasperson wrote:
Does a license have to comply with the published requirements
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) in order for the distributor
or creator of the software to call it open source?
No. It is encouraged socially to 'help the end user' by
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, but that kind of DVD stuff is enforced by the
anti-circumvention crap of the WIPO treaty and the DMCA law, isn't
Here's my understanding, surely to be corrected...
The 'anti-circumvention crap' allows the copyright holder to
effectively
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code
for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open
Source.
G. Nobody has a trademark on Open Source, so he can call it
that if he wants.
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Julian Hall wrote:
Following comments I received on version 1.0 of the DSPL, I have
prepared a revision for submission for approval.
Here are my comments:
Section 3, use of the software, seems to be fairly irrelevant.
Surely simply saying use of the software is not
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Steve Lhomme wrote:
That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules
for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source
licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the
same one of a derived work.
1. Because binaries
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
But you *did* say free software licenses according to the FSF. But
that's precisely what I was objecting to -- your implication that the
FSF defines free software and that nobody else's opinion matters.
Please stop, and think about what you're
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
This is a very good summary.
See? I'm not out to demonize you :)
The FSF argues that, without the social/ethical committment to free
software, their committment to open source changes like the wind.
Well, more accurately (IMO), the FSF argues that
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
I value.
I don't agree. I think that there are problems with it.
Like
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Martin Konold wrote:
According to RMS the only way to become free software aka GPL compatible
is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to
GPL.
This is factually incorrect. RMS does not require free software to be
GPL compatible. As he
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
No, the argument is that proprietary software is immoral and unethical.
Sorry, I did not intend to make expansive arguments about the sum total of
motivations. I was specifically referring to the idea that software
licenses should not restrict us
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The invisible hand
is the forest.
No, I'm seeing hills, and you're calling it a forest.
The FSF and OSI distance themselves from one another politically, and
advocates of one over another disagree, but
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on
both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism.
I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
was unpragmatic, or that a pragmatic person
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal
requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast
into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done
by people with actual experience with the
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote:
The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several
popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by
I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free
software community was an open, friendly place
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote:
the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal.
or, at the very least, they are
non-conflicting restrictions.
Wrong. The particular problem is You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
I still think it's
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote:
is it possible to take GPL'ed code,
modify it, relicense it under
a proprietary license, and distribute
it only in binary form?
my understanding is it is not possible.
but MIT'ed code would allow this.
Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can
redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement?
Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a
corporation qualfies as distribution, a question
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
OK, not being a lawyer, I may not have the full grasp, but from my
one term of Business Law, I don't see how a license is enforceable
EXCEPT under contract law. Nothing in Copyright Law specifies the
Licenses (at least what I've read of the 1976 law
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
This has the beneficial effect of making it harder to create Yet
Another open source license.
I agree with keeping the number of essentially identical licences to
a minimum. I do *not* agree with accomplishing that by discouraging
people
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 15:03, M. Drew Streib wrote:
For those that haven't seen, NewsForge is carrying a none-to-flattering
story of the discussion on this list these past couple of weeks:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Given the current process, that is most likely true. But since
I do not believe the current process is as good as it could be,
I do not consider that truth to be an absolute one.
Neither do I.
Possible improvement #1: if the load is too
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the
current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul.
Okey, I can go along with that. :-)
To clarify my statements (I didn't expect agreement or I wouldn't have
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I think it comes down to control. It looks to me like, at this point,
Larry Rosen is making all of the decisions about approvals, because
Hmm. OK, I'm wrong.
--
Matthew Weigel
Research Systems Programmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED
Why is this license
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice-2612) not listed on
the OSI list of approved licenses
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/)?
Actions the W3C would apparently like to take - including hosting Amaya
on sourceforge.net - depend upon this approval, which has
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Johnson wrote:
The page you referenced is not the page containing the software license. This
is a better link:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720
Thanks.
As to why it has not yet been approved, I couldn't tell you. I
understand that
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Hey, when did you do that? 25 April 2001.
Why didn't you tell me?? Because if you don't bother asking us how
the license approval is going, you obviously don't care. If you
don't care, we don't care.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:26 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to see that it's a matter of opinion. OSI Certification
Mark applies only to software packages. Doesn't say anything that
OSI only cares about software full stop.
I guess we're reading it differently - dedicated to
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:36 AM,
Linux From Scratch is not a standard... are you confusing it with
the FHS?
Hmm. Yes. I've never heard of Linux From Scratch.
I take it back. I took inspiration from the FDL in terms of
invariant sections, but they can't be useful ones in the
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote:
It started life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. It was
never put through any consideration for covering the slightly
different world of documentation. It is ill-considered to tack on
new duties.
Point me at the bits which make a problem, aside
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[would you mind wrapping your lines?]
Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated
documentation suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than
affiliated documentation (and how often do you find out-of-date man
pages in Linux?).
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote:
Yes. And it's that subset that is of interest to the Free SOFTWARE and
Open Source SOFTWARE community. Not the set of documents specifically
outside that subset.
Is it not plausible, though, that some documentation is outside a
piece of software and
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it? ;-)
a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor.
That's right. Dismissive of the attitude that the software itself
should not provide adequate documentation. You've apparently
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because there is currently no OSI approved license
that says copy/distribute/no-modify.
yet the defition appears to support one.
I've addressed this.
There's a significant difference between being able to distribute
pristine source+patches versus
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which got me wondering. Exactly what world do you live in that
software is NOT considered a document, controlled by copyright law?
The world where software is covered as much by patent law, trade secret
law
Where I'm from it's a legal fact,
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Karsten M. Self writes:
I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and
would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not
HTML-tagged content.
If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the markup
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
At this point, I think the OSI needs to apologize to the wider
community for wasting everyone's time, say that the FSF adequately
represents the community, and dissolve. The FSF may not handle things
to everyone's
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, David Johnson wrote:
Back when I joined this list, it was my impression that it was only
for unofficial public discussion of licenses, and *not* meant to be
any part of an approval process. My assumption at that time, which
still holds, is that the OSI board has their own
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
4. The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of patch
files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time. The license must
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote:
So if you devise qmail patches, you can pass them to your friends.
I wasn't contesting that in any way. I was contesting Brian's claim
that passing around patches was not enough in the *spirit* of open
source. I think that patches and binaries are
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
If you can point me at a vibrant open source community laboring under
such conditions, I'll rest my case; however, I just don't see how
it's possible.
Why does it have to be 'vibrant'? All it needs are a few members in
the community.
Given the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Nope, read more closely at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html:
Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail
package if [...list of conditions...]
The OSD doesn't state that there could be no conditions.
That's semantic
There are a few answers to your question.
One is, if you look at www.opensource.org, we all have the same
question - ...please send us URLs of articles and papers on commercial
trials of the open source model
Another is on the personal level. If you want to contribute to open
source or
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I think it unlikely that it was rejected.
The OSI board is a group of overworked volunteers (sound familiar?) and
things do get dropped on the floor from time to time.
They are a group of overworked volunteers who claim to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
[ as a side note, I think this is one of the places where the OSD
itself is flawed. The language of #2 should say, in my opinion: "The
license must allow modifications and derived works, and must REQUIRE
them to be distributed under the same terms
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Samuel Reynolds wrote:
The copyright owner can license the code under any terms he likes,
or none at all.
He can license the code under different terms to different people.
He can license the code under different terms to the same people at
different times.
Or, as in
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Eric Jacobs wrote:
Brian DeSpain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and
development can continue on the code.
Can you explain why this is the case?
Because the license contains no provisions for revocation. Thus,
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering
questions like this one.
:
But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice
Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS.
I agree. If
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
will not be defined by the Windows98 user, but by the typical user of
Unix (since that is the platform for Motif), who would have a radically
different perception of what an OS is.
If you're going to get into legal terms, then no, Unix does not have
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that
licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect
their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell
Labs to demand private source is also
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet
"official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD
even if it strays from the general spirit several times.
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
in the Motif
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost
of any media.
This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial
distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.
I don't think this is really a
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to
matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
[snip]
I do think David makes a very good point. Although provisions like sections
6.1(i) and 6.1(ii) are not unusual for non-mass market software licenses,
they do not seem to meet the spirit of an open source license. (Of course,
it would
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I can understand where they're coming from with the clause, but it
would have been nice if they limited it to copyright infringements. The
way it is now, if I goof up and misuse the Lucent trademark as it
relates to telephones, I lose the license to
I am hoping also that the difficulty so many have had with unsusbscribing is
due to similar issues. I experienced this recently myself, when I noticed
that I hadn't seen an OSI board-member post in quite some time, nor indicate
they'd read a single blessed thing.
The directions to unsubscribe
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random
proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain
actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying,
distributing, and making derivative works. You
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek Balling wrote:
Say what? The SunOS kernel isn't free. Why would RMS urge its use?
We're not talking about urging its use, we're simply talking about "what
would you CALL a hybrid of the SunOS kernel using entirely GNU
applications". For RMS's contentions
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
I find FSF's position on proportionate compensation quite clear and
philosophically consistent; I don't like some of its consequences.
Think of it from another angle, then, that I think is consistent with the
Free Software Foundation's views:
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
the Apple license.
Excuse me. That was originally said in conjunction with a few other things
that I ended up taking out, because I couldn't figure out how to word it
properly.
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
I agree with Richard that GNOME should be classified of part of the Free
Software movement.
I'm glad you said something -- I almost jumped in, but I'm not involved with
Gnome.
We are not working on GNOME because it is "economically" a good idea,
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
[for readability I've reformatted some comments]
| Except the *NeXT* community.
OK, that's fair.
| making open systems in the first place), of course. My objective
| is to benefit the user, and make the user's life nice.
OK, I like that
77 matches
Mail list logo
