- Forwarded message from "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
=
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only. ==
==
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
> comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
> not.
>
>3.
How Apache went from a rather decent 5 clause license to the proposed
11 clause license is a mystery to me. I strongly suggest the license
be gone over with a fine toothed comb and searched for areas where it
can be made more general and less specific.
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Hi, I'm Marco Ghirlanda, Linux Advisor at the Virtual Reality and Multi
Media Park of Turin, Italy. (www.vrmmp.it).
We developed for our Open Source Lab (www.opensourcelab.it) a remastered
version of the Knoppix Live Cd, Medialinux, wich includes most ot the
audio, graphic and video software tha
[Follows set to debian-legal.]
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
> If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it
> significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public
> domain? The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 02:43:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> a single license apply to the work "as a whole", as you say.
>
> What do you mean by "once under the LGPL or public domain"? What
> mechanism do you propose causes works to stop being licensed under the
> LGPL, or withdrawn from
Branden,
I don't disagree with anything you've stated regarding my sloppy
arguments. However, as you are implying on a public forum that I don't
grasp the subject matter of licenses, I'm going to defend myself a little.
I wrote, unfortunately, "If the library as a whole must be under GPL
li
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
> > Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
> > (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
> > any patent licenses granted by
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003, Adam Warner wrote:
> So you want companies to grant perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> fully paid-up and royalty free patent licenses that are completely
> irrevocable even when another company is using their software and
> suing them for software patent infringement?
What
10 matches
Mail list logo
