[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All,
There seemed to be a great debate a few years back regarding whether a company
could augment GPL software for its own, private use and never release any
modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes,
GPL does allow that
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is a very complex set of issues. First, the patent is not only
licensed under the ASL2 -- it is actually licensed by the contributor
to the ASF and any recipient of the ASF's software as part of their
contribution. The Apache License makes the recipient aware of
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I do wonder about
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the
Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without
any additional terms
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval. it's online at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
and i'm attaching the text version to this message.
it is our belief that this
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:51:53PM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Martin Konold writes:
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.
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
This has the beneficial effect of making it
harder to create Yet Another open source license.
I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
opinion, not a certainty nor natural law.
Licence compatibility issues
Rick Moen wrote:
To be really explicit, then: You indulged the time-honoured
pastime of setting up a caricature of your interlocutor's
position and then knocking it down.
If I did, I assure you it was unintentional. :-) If anything,
I think you may have been guilty of this before I, since
Matthew C. Weigel 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. :-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer,
Russell Nelson wrote:
This has the beneficial effect of making it
harder to create Yet Another open source license.
I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
opinion, not a certainty nor natural law. Therefore
I continue to object -- courteously -- to remarks that
take it as a
Rick Moen wrote:
(I'm not referring to obviously needed adjustments like IBM's
Common Public License
I am not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying the
IPL (grin) needs adjustment? Or that it *was* an adjustment,
and a welcome one? Or what?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar,
Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
We are looking at open sourcing a software project and are currently
trying to evaluate BSD vs. Apache. The issue is that our code base
includes Xerces-C (XML parser) which is under Apache Public License.
The implication, then, is that for both subsequent source and
John Cowan wrote:
The Apache license is just the old BSD license, with what is sometimes
called "the obnoxious advertising clause".
That clause was removed in 1.1 of the Apache licence.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation
I should point out that V1.1 of the Apache licence has followed the
model of new-BSD; see http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.
Is this new licence now GPL-compatible?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/
"Apache Server
Alex Nicolaou wrote:
However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software.
I think the problem with this
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
part of the GNU project.
This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
I
Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are inspired by the GNU Project and the Free Software movement,
I hope you will choose a name that refers to freedom. The word "open"
calls to mind the Open Source movement, which differs from the Free
Software movement in rejecting all talk of freedom,
16 matches
Mail list logo
