- Original Message -
From: Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Me:
Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any
must in your 3.
Abe:
-- I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your
modifications private. The base line is: either keep
Me:
Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any
must in your 3.
Abe:
-- I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your
modifications private. The base line is: either keep them private
*or* distribute to the public. Nothing in between.
I'm
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote (editted
silight by me in []:
I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff
already, I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software
three choices:
1) make no modifications.
2) make mods and keep
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any group should be able to share
modifications among themselves without the outside world (including the
original author) being aware of it.
-- I do not regard open-source as a one-sided mirror - if it is
to work at all,
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would offer the recipients of my software
three choices:
1) make no modifications.
2) make mods and keep them private
3) make mods and publish to the public, either by publishing
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The biggest point in this whole discussion is this simple
fact: if I do not insert either a must-publish or a must-supply
clause in my license they can (and probably will) claim that
their source is
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
Restricting the rights
- Original Message -
From: Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
Restricting the rights of
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris F Clark scripsit:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.
The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
-- You raise a touchy point. I'll give you two replies.
1) Any solution that I would provide would equally apply to
terrorist groups. Replace the Chinese dissidents with
Al-Qaeda members - their situations are comparable
David Johnson wrote:
Since the FSF rejects the APSL as being non-free, for the reasons that
it regulates how the software may be used internally via a
must-publish clause, then I'm pretty sure that you've got your terms
backwards.
I stand corrected. I did not consider the additional
Chris F Clark scripsit:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.
The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be required to publish
every little dink you make to GPLed software? How often?
In reply to:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.
John Cowan wrote:
The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be required to publish
every little dink you make to GPLed software?
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:43 am, Chris F Clark wrote:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their
freedoms. I find that a curious point, since as I understand it, the
original impetus for the movement was
David Johnson writes:
The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The
boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private and
public spheres.
A reasonable distinction. This brings up the question of where the
private and public spheres end.
Personally,
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 09:59 pm, Chris F Clark wrote:
David Johnson writes:
The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The
boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private
and public spheres.
A reasonable distinction. This brings up the question of
Mark,
Chris and I appear to share a point of view.
Thanks Chris, for your reaction.
I feel strengthened by it. Which license do you
currently use for open-source distribution?
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Chris F Clark wrote:
I would
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
-- It's always fine to know people use my software to their
advantage - but I have to make a living, too. To put it
bluntly: I cannot afford to give my software away without
any restriction, however noble that might seem to some.
In replying to:
Is a must-supply (to copyright holder, that is) clause
preferable over a must-publish (to the public, that is)
clause, or vice versa.
Mark Rafn wrote:
Neither qualify as acceptible in my book. I'd be interested to hear
from OSI board members whether this
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
Not wanting to compromise
the relation with their software supplier being one fairly
good reason, habitual secretiveness another one,
and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable
by their own customers as yet another
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Chris F Clark wrote:
I would like an open source license that
prevents or atleast substantially discourages commercial users who
wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use
it when developing open source applications.
[I'm relatively new to the
Chris F Clark scripsit:
As a vendor of
proprietary software, I would like an open source license that
prevents or atleast substantially discourages commercial users who
wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use
it when developing open source applications.
This
John,
thanks again, and once more please find my comments inserted below.
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
you must supply changes in source form to people who
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
Not wanting to compromise
the relation with their software supplier being one fairly
good reason, habitual secretiveness another one,
and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable
by their own customers as yet another (very
John,
thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted
in between your text.
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm)
currently has both - which is definitely an overkill,
even though it grants users
Bennett,
thanks for your reply. Please find my comments inserted
in between your tecxt.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2003-03-05T14:34:23 John Cowan:
The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
you must supply changes in source
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
you must supply changes in source form to people who have received
the changed version. If the changed version is published to all, the
changes must also be; if the changed version is
Abe Kornelis scripsit:
The BXAPL (see http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm)
currently has both - which is definitely an overkill,
even though it grants users the right to keep their
modifications entirely private. That is: one either keeps
all modifications private, or they are published
28 matches
Mail list logo
