Re: license questions.

2002-10-08 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:56:57PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote: > > Which is the definition of a body calling itself "Open Source > > Initiative". > The one that holds the trademark on "Open Source". Didn't that end with the appropriate office decidi

Re: license questions.

2002-10-08 Thread Lynn Winebarger
On Monday 07 October 2002 13:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Auke Jilderda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > - First, the boundaries of the GPL are unclear. Exactly what does the > > term "derived work" mean, does the license propagate across static > > linking, dynamic linking, IPC, or eve

Re: license questions.

2002-10-08 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 08:05:52PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:15:07PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified) > > > Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an > > >

Re: license questions.

2002-10-08 Thread Martin Schröder
On 2002-10-08 00:02:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > The one that holds the trademark on "Open Source". Surely you must agree > that that gives their definition special status? Yes. They were the first to register this TM in the USA. Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.on