. I do not expect any more changes to be made. I feel this
license is solid and ready to undergo review by the OSI Board.
PACKAGE_NAME LICENSE
(Simplified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright COPYRIGHT_HOLDER, COPYRIGHT_YEAR. All Rights
Reserved.
The intent of this document is to state
[My apologies if you receive this twice; I thought I sent it in text
format the first time...]
This is a formal request that the OSI Board approve the license I have
created, the Simplified Artistic License. I have patiently listened to
all feedback regarding this license and adjusted
From my perspective, this license meets the Open Source Definition. I do have
some minor comments.
- Redistributions of the Package in source form must retain the original
copyright notices and associated comments that are included at the
beginning of each source file, denoted as an
) it contains too many conditions that I do not feel are necessary.
...for the new Simplified Artistic License, created in response to the
resistance to approving the license despite the license being OSD
compliant, and promises to the author that it would happen:
I believe that there is a need
on Tue, Oct 08, 2002, Robert Samuel White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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 constraints imposed by you. You're welcome to live with the
,
outdated?
Refer to the original post with this same subject line.
Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 8:38 PM
To: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: Simplified Artistic License [osd]
To Robert Samuel White,
From: Robert
- First and foremost, I want a license which is less
complicated than the existing licenses.
You're entitled to that, but we've warned you to consult an attorney.
Complexity is related to enforceability. Attorneys will almost
certainly not recommend your license to their clients because it
believe that this discussion has long reached its
usefulness and should be ended now.
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:45 PM
To: 'Robert Samuel White'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License [osd
Bruce Dodson writes:
You misunderstood me, Larry. I was not saying that YOU were trying to
discourage RSW from pursuing approval. On the contrary I was surmising,
without putting words in your mouth, that you'd agree that this would be
unconscionable.
As for Russ and others, I
Russell Nelson sez:
In any case, I'm very suspicious of this term:
- Use of any form whatsoever must retain the three automatically
generated META tags for all HTML output; these tags indicate that the
page was generated by eNetwizard and directs users to more information
To: 'Russell Nelson'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise)
I've decided to just forget it. I'm going to use my license
and forget about OSI approving it. I didn't want this much
controversy. I was very patient and listened to every one's
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed
Compromise))
I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying, but I for one
consider
it an unfair tactic to try to discourage RSW from seeking approval.
Russ
and other board members may think he is misguided
I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying, but I
for one consider it an unfair tactic to try to discourage RSW
from seeking approval. Russ and other board members may
think he is misguided in believing that others will want to
use his license, and might even be right, but that
' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Robert Samuel White'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Russell Nelson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed
Compromise))
I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying
Guys, it's no biggie...really!
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Robert Samuel White'; 'Russell Nelson'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License
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
feedback. I'd appreciate
it...
Thanks!
eNetwizard Content Management Server License
(Simplified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright Robert Samuel White, 1998-2002. All Rights Reserved.
The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which
eNetwizard Content Management
]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:46 AM
To: OSI License Discussion
Cc: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: Simplified Artistic License
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
(Simplified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright Robert Samuel White, 1998-2002. All Rights Reserved.
The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which
eNetwizard Content Management Server (Package), and derivatives of
that collection of files created through textual modification
If it would please Russ, and the OSI, then I propose accepting a
template of my license, which could be called the Simplified Artistic
License. I believe that there is a need for it, for several reasons:
(1) the Artistic License has some archaic conditions within it, (2) it
has too many
If it would please Russ, and the OSI, then I propose accepting a
template of my license, which could be called the Simplified Artistic
License. I believe that there is a need for it, for several reasons:
(1) the Artistic License has some archaic conditions within it, (2) it
has too many
for my
desires. And I think that others would want to use this license as
well.
So I propose the Simplified Artistic License.
I posted a copy of the template for it to the list, but I think that it
can be simplified even further, by removing the definitions section of
the license, since these words
Dear Russ,
When you say that you would have a problem with that language now in
reference to something written in the Artistic License, it only
reinforces one of the original reasons why I have asked for approval of
the Simplified Artistic License. The Artistic License had its place,
and maybe
Robert Samuel White writes:
I can understand your point of view, I just wonder if you can see mine?
Of course. Do you understand that I see your point of view, and that
I'm trying to help you achieve your goal?
I am an artist. I develop software, and that's what I love doing. I
also
, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Robert Samuel White
Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise)
Robert Samuel White writes:
There are some things I like about the Academic Free License, then
there
are many things that I do not like... Do you really want me to go
into
it?
Yes
. What's wrong with the AFL, for example, as an alternative to
RSW's Simplified Artistic License? Why doesn't trademark law give RSW
the artistic protection he desires? These are not just idle questions
intended to give you one more hurdle to overcome; your answers are
vitally important so we can
On Thursday 03 October 2002 10:02 am, Robert Samuel White wrote:
- If the source code was modified in any way, each file that was
modified must include the statement this file was modified from its
original version along with appropriate comments indicating how and why
the file was modified;
27 matches
Mail list logo
