On 5/19/2010 11:22 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Andrew Fenn wrote:
>>
>> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
>> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause
>> to it.
>
> IMNSHO, you *really* don't want to do that. You'd be leaping
> into t
Andrew Fenn wrote:
>
> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause
> to it.
IMNSHO, you *really* don't want to do that. You'd be leaping
into the world of 'licence proliferation,' which is a maze
of twisty l
: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net] On
Behalf Of Trevor Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:40 PM
To: William A. Rowe Jr.
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Choice o
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 11:10 PM, Nasser Dassi wrote:
> >
> > If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt
> > the most transparent license. Why? Because we are not usurping
> > licensing of the source code; we are simp
Thanks Nasser,
Are we done here? I'd like to get back to some code now.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Nasser Dassi wrote:
> Just to bring everyone's attention back to topic, here are the licenses in
> question:
>
> Alphabetical listing of OSI Licenses --
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/a
On 5/18/2010 11:10 PM, Nasser Dassi wrote:
>
> If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt
> the most transparent license. Why? Because we are not usurping
> licensing of the source code; we are simply re-packaging the source
> code... so, broadly speaking, we should pr
Just to bring everyone's attention back to topic, here are the licenses in
question:
Alphabetical listing of OSI Licenses --
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
*"New" BSD* License -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
*Apache *License 2.0 -- http://www.opensource.org/
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Seo Sanghyeon wrote:
> 2010/5/19 Mark Stone :
> > The language in a license is an implementation choice. Stop looking at
> > implementation, and ask yourself what do you actually want from a
> > license:
> > * Do you want to restrict derivative works?
> > * Do yo
2010/5/19 Mark Stone :
> The language in a license is an implementation choice. Stop looking at
> implementation, and ask yourself what do you actually want from a
> license:
> * Do you want to restrict derivative works?
> * Do you want to allow commercial bundling?
> * Are you concerned about pate
Andrew have a point : "so that
everyone is happy"
I would try to think like a final user (a company that develops and sells
software),
We use Windows and Microsoft (not open source), so maybe if we want to build
applications that use CoApp as their foundation, ... we want to use CoApp,
modify CoAp
> I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you actually
> cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this topic,
I meant within our community not in open source in general. It seems
some want BSD others want APL. I personally don't care which however I
figu
On 5/18/2010 9:54 PM, Andrew Fenn wrote:
> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause to
> it.
Hmmm?
I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you actually
cite either a lawyer or promine
If you have a concern about the contribution agreement with the
CodePlex Foundation, then raise your concern with them and have them
pay their lawyers to address it. Having set up the legal processes for
the CodePlex Foundation myself, I know that (a) they should be willing
to do so, and (b) they h
Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause to
it.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 1:01 PM, Ted Bullock wrote:
>> On 18/05/2010 11:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
On 5/18/2010 1:01 PM, Ted Bullock wrote:
> On 18/05/2010 11:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/18/2010 12:55 PM, Ted Bullock wrote:
>>>
>>> For instance here is the ISC license, it is small, easy to understand,
>>> and I never ever get confused about what my responsibilities are.
>>> """
>>>
t; G
>>
>> *Garrett* *Serack* | Open Source Software Developer | *Microsoft
>> Corporation *
>>
>> *I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on
>> Windows.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ferdi [mailto:foe...@googlemail.co
I agree with Mark, we don't need to deal too much with this topics, that is
why I encourage new BSD.
Patents on software, are we kidding?, this is another intense debate, the
Software Patent by their self doesn't have a properly definition, I consider
that we don't need to concern about patents,n
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jay R. Wren wrote:
> I'd encourage you to realize that this is a strawman point you are making.
>
> You don't have to be a master mechanic to choose a car.
>
> You don't have to be a lawyer to choose a license.
>
Fair enough, but I'd also encourage everyone to no
I'd encourage you to realize that this is a strawman point you are making.
You don't have to be a master mechanic to choose a car.
You don't have to be a lawyer to choose a license.
--
Jay
On 5/18/2010 2:32 PM, Mark Stone wrote:
> Developers arguing choice of license makes about as much sense a
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Mark Stone wrote:
> Developers arguing choice of license makes about as much sense as
> lawyers arguing choice of programming language.
Hahaha, that's a good point.
--
Ted Bullock
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad
Developers arguing choice of license makes about as much sense as
lawyers arguing choice of programming language. Until we are in a
position to have real legal counsel, we should use the least
restrictive, most permissive, most minimalist license possible so that
we give ourselves maximum flexibili
On 18/05/2010 11:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 12:55 PM, Ted Bullock wrote:
>>
>> For instance here is the ISC license, it is small, easy to understand,
>> and I never ever get confused about what my responsibilities are.
>> """
>> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribu
On 5/18/2010 12:55 PM, Ted Bullock wrote:
>
> For instance here is the ISC license, it is small, easy to understand,
> and I never ever get confused about what my responsibilities are.
> """
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
> purpose with or without fee is
On 18/05/2010 11:31 AM, Roberto Carlos González Flores wrote:
> My vote is for BSD License, but I didn't have time to check it, its only
> because in most cases I would prefer BSD type Licences than viral Apache
> Licenses. But I need to check the new versions.
>
The Redistribution section of the
On 5/18/2010 12:31 PM, Roberto Carlos González Flores wrote:
> My vote is for BSD License, but I didn't have time to check it, its only
> because in most cases I would prefer BSD type Licences than viral Apache
> Licenses. But I need to check the new versions.
Explain? AL adds no constraints to t
loper | *Microsoft
> Corporation *
>
> *I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on
> Windows.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Ferdi [mailto:foe...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:51 AM
> *To:* Garrett Serack
> *Cc:* coapp-develope
t; *I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on
> Windows.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Ferdi [mailto:foe...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:51 AM
> *To:* Garrett Serack
> *Cc:* coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Coa
2010 8:51 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Choice of License.
Why not Ms-PL? easy...
2010/5/18 Garrett Serack mailto:garre...@microsoft.com>>
I've been looking at this carefully, and it boils down to a couple of choices:
28 matches
Mail list logo
