Dear list:
"The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee . . ."
Thanks all very much for having discussed this. I'm the original poster.
I did not participate in the ensuing discussion but I lurked with much
intere
ou're subsidizing the local service for all of the people in your
community.
James
>-Original Message-
>From: David Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Subject: Re: The OSD and commercial use
>
>> Imagine if you went to a store and say a display of chairs. Imagine th
> Imagine if you went to a store and say a display of chairs. Imagine the
> price
> tag said "Non-commercial sitters: free; commercial sitters: $100". Imagine
I'm sure I could find counters to even this, point, although they tend
to involve the fact that commercial buyers buy through different
c
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 10:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Steve Mallett scripsit:
Yes. However the agreements are mostly very reasonable for both sides.
They rarely include anything like "you agree not to have passengers."
If they did I would gladly ignore it. Wouldn't you?
I don't dr
David Johnson scripsit:
> Now imagine if the rates for company groups were higher. When my work group
> goes out next month to see LOTR:TT, we would not go as a group, but would buy
> our tickets individually. We would even stagger our arrival times if
> necessary to make sure the theater didn'
On Saturday 23 November 2002 07:09 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson scripsit:
> > On the other hand, if I handed over $30, received the keys, and never
> > signed anything, then that rental "contract" shoved in the glove box
> > loses a lot of its importance.
>
> If that were the custom of the
David Johnson scripsit:
> On the other hand, if I handed over $30, received the keys, and never signed
> anything, then that rental "contract" shoved in the glove box loses a lot of
> its importance.
If that were the custom of the industry, then turning the key would be
just as important as sig
Steve Mallett scripsit:
> Yes. However the agreements are mostly very reasonable for both sides.
> They rarely include anything like "you agree not to have passengers."
> If they did I would gladly ignore it. Wouldn't you?
I don't drive. But when my wife rents a car, she is quite careful to
On Saturday 23 November 2002 07:44 am, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson scripsit:
> > Imagine if you went to a store and say a display of chairs. Imagine the
> > price tag said "Non-commercial sitters: free; commercial sitters: $100".
> > Imagine going to a movie theater and seeing a sign that sai
On Saturday 23 November 2002 07:37 am, John Cowan wrote:
> Steve Mallett scripsit:
> > I've personally always hated the argument that "you have a choice about
> > what you agree to use." Of course I do. I also have the choice to
> > tell you I agree with it to get it and then do as I damn well wi
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:37 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Steve Mallett scripsit:
I've personally always hated the argument that "you have a choice
about
what you agree to use." Of course I do. I also have the choice to
tell you I agree with it to get it and then do as I damn well wis
David Johnson scripsit:
> Imagine if you went to a store and say a display of chairs. Imagine the price
> tag said "Non-commercial sitters: free; commercial sitters: $100". Imagine
> going to a movie theater and seeing a sign that said "Children: $4; Adults:
> $8; Company groups: $20 per employ
Steve Mallett scripsit:
> I've personally always hated the argument that "you have a choice about
> what you agree to use." Of course I do. I also have the choice to
> tell you I agree with it to get it and then do as I damn well wish with
> it.
Have you ever rented a car? Do you take that
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 07:11 AM, Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
wrote:
But the user still wants to be able to treat all products the same.
It may be irrational, but that's the way it is. One of the attributes
of Free and Open Source Software is that the user can ideed treat
software li
But the user still wants to be able to treat all products the same. It may be
irrational, but that's the way it is. One of the attributes of Free and Open
Source Software is that the user can ideed treat software like a chair, and
not get sued for doing so.
It is totally rational from the us
David Johnson wrote:
The following is my opinion only, but it may help to explain the
"why." Software is fundamentally a different class of product than
a material product like a chair. Both copyright and the nature of
software copying makes this so.
Which is why copyright law should not apply
On Friday 22 November 2002 04:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear list:
>
> The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
> commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6,
> and perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
>
> Why?
The following is my opinion only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and
perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
Why?
I believe that would be discrimination against users which is against the OSD.
Howeve
> The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
> commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and
> perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
>
> Why?
I believe that would be discrimination against users which is against the OSD.
However, the OSD doesn't
Dear list:
The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring
commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and
perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
Why?
Consider a business model with this basis: the software is distributed freely,
but if someone makes mon
20 matches
Mail list logo
