Thank you, this clarifies a lot.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:19 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
> > discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use.
>
> Actually it simply forbids redistribution by com
Vaclav Petras scripsit:
> the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
> discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use.
Actually it simply forbids redistribution by commercial entities, not use.
> It seems to me that this clear violates the Op
Hello all,
the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use. It seems to me that
this clear violates the Open Source Definition [2] because it discriminates
against a specific field of endeavor. Can somebody please
To License-Discuss (and to other potentially interested persons in bcc):
I have revised the Open Software License to resolve concerns raised by
several people, and today submit the new version to license-discuss for
OSI approval. The new OSL license, version 2.0, can be found at
http
wri scripsit:
>
> [ please discuss this license. Is he a candidate for using the
> Academic License? -russ ]
I don't have the slightest idea what point 2 means:
# All distribution of this Software and evolved derivations of
# this Software shall embrace the RTX-2000 RTOS Open License to meet
[ please discuss this license. Is he a candidate for using the
Academic License? -russ ]
Gentlemen -
I wish to submit http://uphilltechnology.com/rtxlicense/rtx_open_license.html for Open
Source Initiative approval. This license is fashioned from the Berkeley and MIT
licenses with minor alter
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>I welcome your feedback.
>
>
"Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, non-sublicenseable license to do the following:"
Does not re-distribution amount to sublicense?
Regards,
Mahesh T. Pai.
___
At Bruce Dodson's suggestion, I have revised section 3 of the Open
Software License ("Grant of Source Code License") so that the term
Source Code is general enough to apply to other works besides
traditional software. I also removed the confusing term "interface
documentatio
What is "Open software"? Maybe a more specific name
should be used...
So "open software license" can be applied to other
than software. Then why is it called a software
license? GPL can be applied to other things too, see
the WebGPL.
Should the OSI stay out of the lic
Attached for your review is version 1.0 of the Open Software
License (OSL). I am submitting the OSL to Open Source
Initiative for its approval.
The OSL is intended to serve the same functions as the GPL
except that it is a contract, and to be interpreted under
contract law, rather than a
10 matches
Mail list logo
