[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Eric said you were curious about the IBM Jikes license.
>
> Reports that Eric "blessed" the license are not accurate. I did "bless" an
> early draft, about 5 drafts ago. I am still looking at the current
> (released) version and will discuss it with the
Jim Pick writes:
> It's difficult reading through all the legal diarrhea in the license -
> but it seems pretty clear to me that you lose all the rights
> (redistribution, modification, patents) granted to you by the license if
> you take a snippet of code (less than 60%) out of Jikes and try to us
Edward John M. Brocklesby writes:
> I believe the bit about contacting the author contradicts the GPL,
> therefore this is a KDE-type license. I'll talk to the author about it.
As long as he is the author of all of it, his "additional conditions"
effectively amend the GPL.
This, however, would se
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sengan, myself, and a few others have been working on this for months.
> There are some people at IBM who are really into making _more_ software
> Open Source. Please be nice to them.
For better or worse, we have a proposed re-write of the DFSG being
consi
Eric said you were curious about the IBM Jikes license.
Reports that Eric "blessed" the license are not accurate. I did "bless" an
early draft, about 5 drafts ago. I am still looking at the current
(released) version and will discuss it with the OSD board, and then we will
make an official stateme
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's difficult reading through all the legal diarrhea in the license -
> but it seems pretty clear to me that you lose all the rights
> (redistribution, modification, patents) granted to you by the license
> if you take a snippet of code (less than 60%) out of Jikes
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> > > > for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> > > > the code, you lose
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> > > for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> > > the code, you lose the right to use their patents.
> >
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> > for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> > the code, you lose the right to use their patents.
>
> This license w
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> the code, you lose the right to use their patents.
Depends on which DFSG we're using. Otherwise, it might just get
res
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> > for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> > the code, you lose the right to use their patents.
>
> This license would pass DFSG, too, of c
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll attach the license at the end. I don't think it's good enough
> for Debian, because if your derivative program uses less than 60% of
> the code, you lose the right to use their patents.
This license would pass DFSG, too, of course.
--
http://w
Hi,
I saw this:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/1423.html
IBM threw support to the Open Source community today with the
announcement that the IBM Jikes Java Compiler has been released as
Open Source software.
The licensing terms have been approved by OSI's Eric S. Raymond. The
source c
Jim Pick writes:
> It's got an advertising clause, and an even more intrusive
> "Attribution" clause where they require users of the software to link
> to their site using a button.
> Personally, I don't think that's good enough...
I agree. That 'attribution' clause makes it non-free.
--
John H
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zope.org/License
>
> It's got an advertising clause, and an even more intrusive
> "Attribution" clause where they require users of the software to link
> to their site using a button.
Use clauses are of dubious legality, and if the current Open
S
Hi,
I'm looking around at some technologies I could incorporate into the
next generation of dwww. I want it to be very modular - so python
seems like it might be a nice fit to implement it with. I ran across
the Debian packages of the bobo system - and although I haven't tried
it yet, it does l
Raul Miller writes:
> > You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
> > to include fonts in documents.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But not to distribute derivatives. You appeared to be claiming that a .deb
> that included the whole thing would be
Raul Miller writes:
> You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
> to include fonts in documents.
But not to distribute derivatives. You appeared to be claiming that a .deb
that included the whole thing would be somehow a subset that the license
forbids distributio
Raul Miller writes:
> The problem here is that this is a "use" clause.
Well, it *reads* like a use clause, anyway. I suspect that it was intended
as a distribution clause, and what the authors mean by "base research on"
is "include some our code in your research code". We don't know that
though.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the clause in question:
>
>6. If you base research on SWI-Prolog and publish on this research,
> you must include appropriate acknowledgements and references to
> SWI-Prolog in your publication.
>
> Only when you publish aca
John wrote:
> The advertising clause applies only to distribution. The SWI clause
> appears to apply to mere use.
Here is the clause in question:
6. If you base research on SWI-Prolog and publish on this research,
you must include appropriate acknowledgements and references to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefor a set is a subset of itself [1]. Therefor the "font pack"
> cannot be distributed at all by anyone but Microsoft, since that would
> constitute distributing a subset.
You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> How can _all_ be a subset?
Raul writes:
> One set is a subset of another if all the members of the first are
> members of the second.
Therefor a set is a subset of itself [1]. Therefor the "font pack" cannot
be distributed at all by anyone but Microsoft, since that would
23 matches
Mail list logo
