According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a US
> > corporation.
>
> Consider this scenario: I print out a piece of "export restricted" APSL
> source code, fly to Germany with it, and give it to Marcus. According to
>
According to Seth David Schoen:
> If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lot of room for
> confusion, perhaps because of the number of things the DFSG took for
> granted.
OSI has never made an explicit or implicit contract to call something
"Open Source" just because it meets the OSD. So t
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The GPL is not the only free license there is. If you have a problem
> with that, you have a problem with the DFSG. There are pieces of
> software the GPL is not compatible with SITTING IN MAIN. Yes, TRULY FRE
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 02:16:36PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license (assuming
> > incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the Free Software
> > community. But then, he does not colicense it under the GPL. Why? You
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> my solution: create a license that shares the transitive property of the
> gpl for modifications, but that has a clause like the lgpl's allowing
> other programs to link with it *so long as they are covered by a dfsg
> compliant licence*.
The Debian Free Software Guideli
> The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license (assuming
> incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the Free Software
> community. But then, he does not colicense it under the GPL. Why? You don't
> give me a good reason for it ("they just don't want to" is no r
Jonathan,
I understood your intent.
It's laudable. In fact, I was planning myself to write a license very
like that which you describe.
However, I question that it's necessary.
IMO, it would be a good thing if all free software were GPLed. I believe
in copyleft.
Now, I respect other authors'
hm, perhaps five pages is a bit long. i'll try to make this one a bit more
clear. ;)
* the problem: the most popular available copyleft licence around has severe
compatibility issues, even with other free software (more silly arguments
on the exact extent of this is not really productive; we k
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The olex package contains this license for text files:
>
> LICENSE.TEXT
>
>This file describes the license on any text file in this distribution,
>hereafter called the TEXT. This license does specifically not apply to
>any file in this
> > [...] I am almost frightened by
> > the number of people who have never READ the GPL and yet they
> > release code under it...
>
> How many such people do you know?
at least one; i know that before i read the gpl (which was, coincidentally,
when i started learning perl and discovered that it
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license
> (assuming incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the
> Free Software community. But then, he does not colicense it under the
> GPL. Why?
Because he doesn't know he can. Most hackers s
The olex package contains this license for text files:
LICENSE.TEXT
This file describes the license on any text file in this distribution,
hereafter called the TEXT. This license does specifically not apply to
any file in this distribution which might end in .h or .cc, nor does
it app
Jonathan P Tomer quotes without attribution:
> As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> code into the same program.
And writes:
> yes, but one has to change the license of the final work...
What gave you that idea?
> ...in ways that authors are sometimes unwilli
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 04:34:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> you seem to be missing my point: those licenses are considered free. other
> licenses have compatibility issues which cause certain good things not to
> happen. in my opinion, this is a unilaterally bad thing. i think that anyone
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a very large number of people place software under the GPL
> because they believe it's the standard license for Free Software and
> that they are told the other licenses are "bad" (and in some cases I
> would agree) and that the GPL is good. I a
> > As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> > code into the same program.
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, but one has to change the license of the final work in ways that
> authors are sometimes unwilling and/or unable (ie the original author
>
> As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> code into the same program.
yes, but one has to change the license of the final work in ways that
authors are sometimes unwilling and/or unable (ie the original author does
not exist/cannot be found) to do, for one reason
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > the simple fact of the matter is, by some trick of wording,
> > intentional or not, the "copyleft" or "viral" (depending on the
> > author of the mail ;p) sections of the gpl offer as a reasonable
> > interpretation (by reasonable i mean that it would hav
18 matches
Mail list logo
