Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

1999-04-02 Thread Raul Miller
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >That said, I also believe the purpose of the Open Source trademark > should not so much be to help advertise products as to inform the consumer > as to the status of the license. Perhaps there's a need for another mark for such products? -- Raul

Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

1999-04-02 Thread Lynn Winebarger
On 2 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I formally propose that SPI step in and take control of its intellectual > > property. > > I concur. Third for that. > > So far I can name two such instances in which non-free licenses are being > > called O

Re: Compatibility metalicense, huh?

1999-04-02 Thread Henning Makholm
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:10:36PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Am I making myself clear? Probably not... > It's an interesting idea, although I am scared by the flexibility. What can > guarantee me that every derived license I allow is within m

Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

1999-04-02 Thread bruce
Sorry for joining the thread so late - my DSL was down for three days. From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I formally propose that SPI step in and take control of its intellectual > property. I concur. > So far I can name two such instances in which non-free licenses are being > called Ope

Re: How much pristine should the .orig.tar.gz be?

1999-04-02 Thread Pedro Guerreiro
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:00:10PM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: > I've send the complete README file as an attach (it's small), so that there > aren't any doubts. Sorry, seems it was not very well attached :-) Let me try to tie it harder... -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-02 Thread John Hasler
Chip Salzenberg writes: > Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's a > license,... It's every bit as creative as a program. > ... and license text is not protected by copyright. I've seen this claim made many times. Citations, please. -- John Hasler

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-02 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 05:33:54PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs > > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > > altered? :> > > Of course the license can be alte