RE: CPL

2004-02-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:31 AM > To: 'Russell Nelson' > Cc: 'OS Licensing' > Subject: RE: CPL > > > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler > than the CPL (or derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't > specifically refer to the righ

RE: CPL

2004-02-25 Thread Tony Linde
> Sent: 25 February 2004 15:41 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'OS Licensing' > Subject: RE: CPL > > Tony Linde writes: > > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler > than the CPL (or > derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't > specifically r

RE: CPL

2004-02-25 Thread Russell Nelson
Tony Linde writes: > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler than the CPL (or > derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't specifically refer to the right to > commercially distribute the code or any derivative code without being > obliged to provide any source code. Is this, and simil

RE: CPL

2004-02-25 Thread Tony Linde
their omission from the text? Thanks, Tony. > -Original Message- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 February 2004 23:40 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: OS Licensing > Subject: Re: CPL > > Tony Linde writes: > > The goal is that an

Re: CPL

2004-02-24 Thread Russell Nelson
Tony Linde writes: > The goal is that any of the software we develop can be shared amongst the > partner projects without limitations (save retaining copyright and > contribution notices) AND that any code can be taken, adapted and used by > any commercial concern without restriction (again sav