To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Can we stop these posts already?
About 280KB worth of e-mail has now be exchanged in discussing this
topic, including the 'amusing' spin-off discussions.
It's certainly an important topic, if for no other reason
To John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] and OSI License Discussion
subscribers,
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED],
All good advice, Larry :-)
No no no no no no no. It is *not* advice. It is *not* advice. It is
only education!
Although this posting was written
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: David Presotto [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Are we really afraid that we will be sued for damages by something
we give away for free (as in free
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't
there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa
Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of
contract.
I appears that the GnU General Public License, as part of routine
proceedings in the case, is to be examined:
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa
Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of
contract.
To be picky, Santa Cruz Operation
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability*
of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Benoit Poulot-Cazajous [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Please consider the Jaluna Public License 1.1 for approbation.
This license can be found at :
http://www.jaluna.com/developer/jpl-1.1.html
This license is derived from the Mozilla Public License 1.1,
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Sergey Goldgaber [EMAIL PROTECTED],
A recent Slashdot article, U.S. Army's Future Combat System Will Run
Linux,
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/02/0216215.shtml?tid=103tid=163
has made me wonder if there could be some way to prevent the military
To Justin Chen-Wells, Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M. and OSI License Discussion
subscribers,
From: Justin Chen-Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Justin Chen-Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On the other hand supposing some
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Anonymous Poster,
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I have concluded that the No Warranty License does not conform to the
Open Source Definition. The offending clause is as follows:
If the following disclaimer of warranty and liability is not
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Arnaud Quette [EMAIL PROTECTED],
We (MGE UPS SYSTEMS) would like to release some code under GPL with
exception (file header at the end of this mail), and we need to have
confirmation about some points to do things cleanly and surely:
1) As the GPL
To Justin Chen-Wells,
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Justin Chen-Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED],
This violates Item 5 of the OSD, which states that The license must
not discriminate against any person or group of persons.. By not
granting equal rights to users, distributors and open
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Mahesh T Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be
brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You
can rarely contract out of that.
That
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Here is a link to the RealNetworks Public Source License (RPSL):
http://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl
We'd like to submit this for consideration as an OSI-certified license.
I have read the RealNetworks
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sorry to post an OT message, but I wanted to know if other subscribers
that post here get a return message from the Assawompset mail system
something like this (headers appear to be legitimate
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Graham Bassett [EMAIL PROTECTED],
There is authority to show that, at least by analogy, equity could
allow such specific performance. Multiple developers could be joined
in an action or the open community or communities who have overseen
the
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
Sorry to post an OT message, but I wanted to know if other subscribers
that post here get a return message from the Assawompset mail system
something like this (headers appear to be legitimate):
- The addresse had permanent fatal errors -
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Larry, I can't afford an attorney, as you already know. And I cannot
use one of the existing licenses because it does not feel right to me
to do so.
These are
To OSI License Discussion subscribers and Robert Samuel White,
I have read the Simplified Artistic License. Robert, it mostly complies
with the OSD, although I would look into three additional, minor points:
(1) The license should define Derived in the Definitions.
(2) The license should
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
Dears Sirs,
We are submitting the OCLC Office of Research Public License 2.0 as a
candidate for OSI Certification. Feel free to post the license to the
license-discuss
To OSI License Discussion Subscribers,
From: Stefan Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(Note: I've removed the HTML tags and cleaned up the layout since there
was no HTML-encoded version of the original message. I have left the
entire license intact in case you want to use the plan-text version.)
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Stefan Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
4. You may use the Package, a Modified Package, or a non-commercial
product that contains the Package or a Modified Package in a
commercial environment, e.g. a commercial
, the
license is now, is believe, OSD compliant.
Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
redistributors from exercising their 'open'
rights under the license.
Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
If this were fixed, I would welcome this license into the list of
Approved Licenses.
Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED
you can show that your software has and is being used for
purposes aside from transfers of multimedia files.
Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Abe Kornelis [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I have read the Bixoft Public License (proposal version). I believe
that it is consistent with the Open Source Definition, and meets the
requirements for OSI
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribers,
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I am submitting the accompanying Academic Free License for your review
and for OSI approval. The online copy of the license is at
http://www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html.
I have read the Academic
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribers,
From: Tom Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Macromedia, Inc., would like to obtain OSI certification for its Open
Source License. The Macromedia Open Source License is based on the IBM
Public License, with the following changes per our
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribers,
From: Joshua Colson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
In response to David Johnson's concerns regarding the Public
Scripting License, we have amended sections and added others,
hopefully addressing many of the concerns which he had.
The amended
To Tom Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Tom Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Tom Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I am summarizing the discussion
for Macromedia's Legal department and for the management, my
understanding of the issues is:
(1) changed IBM
33 matches
Mail list logo
