En réponse à Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Once again, as I wrote :
Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ?
Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the
contribution
to my collection.
In the meantime, since you say your
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
- Apple's Darwin project is under the APSL, which remains quite
controversial.
Well, it is and it isn't. I examined this in at least a little bit of
detail when Evan Liebovitch was castigating Apple for allegedly leeching
(I paraphrase) off the BSDs.
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not
alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL
compatible (and also a few minor changes).
Splendid. We will await with interest the cessation of rhetoric and
submission of
On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:08 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can
redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement?
Well, that brings up the question of
| Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce
improvements!
| Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of?
| Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences.
| Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more
begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
Once again, as I wrote :
Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ?
Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the contribution
to my collection.
In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical,
and that you lack time
phil hunt writes:
What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the
proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license
is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists
that does the job.
Already do.
Rick Moen writes:
Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some
difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on
the basis of my initials.
It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was
talking with;
I was
Rick Moen writes:
But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the
gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right
to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be
entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best.
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for
protection of privacy in the OSD.
I was stipulating none such being present.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your
initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to
be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I
figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles.
My
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
What if, as part of the process of approving a new licence, the
proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license
is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause.
I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep
doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation.
Can people claiming (or wishing) to
Rob Myers scripsit:
...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs.
...
The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code
that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or
organisation using it.
Well, that's the GPL
on 24/9/01 11:16 am, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the GPL
imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a
derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients
of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are
begin Rob Myers quotation:
It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume
acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general
offer of distribution on this basis.
I'm sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean. Perhaps you could give an
example.
It also requires a
Ah, the Rainbow-Coloured Fruit Company lobby speaketh.
begin Rob Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) quotation:
Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please
act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying.
Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you
on 24/9/01 3:26 pm, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the
gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right
to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be
entirely untrue. Russ
begin Rob Myers quotation:
I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am
clearly not best placed to express it.
Not a problem. You were certainly being a great deal more coherent than
I generally am before 10 AM. grin
--
Is it not the beauty of an
On Saturday 22 September 2001 11:39 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend.
Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses
increases, the disruption caused by an additional license
increases.
This is because interaction effects of
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can
redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement?
Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a
corporation qualfies as distribution, a question
Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of
making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as
the license is
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
As well it should be. OSI blundered horribly with the APSL. Current
thinking is that certification, once granted, cannot be undone.
Why? I doubt the licence gods will descend in wrath.
I think the Board should mull decertification, and privately suggest
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
There's nothing in the OSD which talks about privacy
You are of course quite correct in this; I had forgotten. And it is
disposative of the issue, unless the OSD were changed.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
24 matches
Mail list logo
