I guess the main problem I have is the back-room dealing that seems to be
going on. Netscape had Eric and I _consult_ on their license, and then
they had a public comment period before the license was finalized. Apple
comes out with a license declared as Open Source as a fait a compli, and
(at leas
From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One single person on the OSI board says they are doing this on one single
> mailing list. He agrees the export issue is a real issue and that the
> termination cause is undesirable. He has only acknowledged the export
> thing to actually be a problem with
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 06:08:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns
> > Further, OSI is making efforts in the right direction. They are discussing
> > how the APSL should be improved with Apple
> Say what? All public disclosure from OSI indicates that they are dragging
> their
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 06:08:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns
> > Further, OSI is making efforts in the right direction. They are discussing
> > how the APSL should be improved with Apple
>
> Say what? All public disclosure from OSI indicates that they are dragging
> th
From: Anthony Towns
> Further, OSI is making efforts in the right direction. They are discussing
> how the APSL should be improved with Apple
Say what? All public disclosure from OSI indicates that they are dragging
their feet about any change in the APSL, nor has anyone at Apple indicated
that O
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:46:25PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> 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.
Then count me as o
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:46:25PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > I spoke with Larry McVoy on the phone yesterday, it's very clear that he
> > is _not_ promoting the license as Open Source, and OSI is not accepting it
> > as such.
> >
> What a little more disturbing was seeing ESR asked in
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
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
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
A lot of people have been saying this and I am now taking it upon myself
to make as official a proposal as I possibly can. Yes, it's long.
If you want to flame me for the length, do it in private (this means you
Branden... =>)
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> A
11 matches
Mail list logo
