According to Joseph Carter:
> Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
Well, you could use the term "OSI-Certified Open Source" as an
unambiguous description of open source licenses. (Unless you don't
like OSI's certifications, of course.)
--
Chip Salzenbe
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:20:23PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > According to Joseph Carter:
> > > Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
> >
> > Well, you could use the term "OSI-Certified Open Source" as an
&g
y, Apple _is_ a large corporation; I don't expect to see
changes in the APSL quickly. It'll take a few months at least before
APSL 1.1 (or 2.0? :-)) is released.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
According to Joseph Carter:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, not on behalf of OSI: Yes, this part of the APSL
> > needs to change. We're working with Apple on APSL mods, and the export
> > limit provisio
announcement.
Therefore, OSI's official position on the APSL hasn't had time to
change. (That's assuming it will change, which I can't predict.)
But the next board meeting is scheduled for fairly soon.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
ration. We were, apparently, wrong. We're hackers, not
lawyers. (But we are looking to get a lawyer involved from now on.)
Besides, hindsight is 20/20 -- if the export clause is so 'obviously'
an OSD violation, why is it only now a subject of public debate?
== PERSONAL OPINION PRECED
is our intent. A recent license was turned down because it might
*possibly* have met the letter of the OSD, but it definitely did *not*
meet the OSD's intent.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
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, an
;ll pass it along to the board.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
x27;t discrimination to require that a
contract be entered into by only those competent to do so. OTOH, I
think it might be useful for Apple to drop it, since there's no point
in repeating law-of-the-land in contract language.
Thanks for the reply.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
ple stands, as I am not "authorized" to give that printed code to
> Marcus: I am just immune to prosecution for doing so.
If you executed the APSL, that gave you the authority to distribute.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
will
> enforce the contract (although the chances of significant penalties
> against him are almost nil).
Hm. Thanks for the clue. As with export control, it seems like
attempting to restate law in a license is a Bad Idea.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
According to Raul Miller:
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, revocation isn't mentioned in the OSD.
>
> This appears to be true.
>
> But this means that a license which expires on April 1 would still
> qualify under OSD. More gen
According to Jules Bean:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > Jules:
> > > Must! I *must* notify apple by filling out the form. If I can't,
> > > for any of the reasons I suggested above, I cannot distribute the
> > > derived work.
> >
According to Jules Bean:
> I understand your interpretation, Chip.
> It's the interpretation I'd make, if I had my 'reasonably man' hat on.
Well, since that's the standard that would apply in court, I feel I've
made my point.
--
Chip Salzenberg
According to Jules Bean:
> Why don't you (try to) persuade Apple to adjust the wording which
> makes the 'reasonable' explanation explicit?
Hm... OK, what do you think should change, exactly? Would explicit
handling of the "web site down" be enough?
-
According to Jonathan P Tomer:
> it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
> modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
So does the BSD advertising clause.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > They're entering into a contract with you.
>
> They are not. A contract requires consideration on both sides.
You get the code. They get your changes.
What do you think the "I Agree" button is for?
--
use it requires those who wish to distribute
> > > modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
>
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So does the BSD advertising clause.
>
> I'm not sure about the OSD guidelines, but Debian treats
ht. The OSD is an explicit enumeration of
requirements, while reedom is an amorphous, ever-changing concept --
and no two people see it quite the same way.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
or(s).
Is it 'Open Source'? The OSD says it is.
Is it 'free'? Depends on who you ask.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
ksome but true to
the ideal of openness, a la BSD's advertising or Apple's reporting.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
tion that isn't based on a contract
(i.e. based strictly on copyright law) can't possible require some of
the things that the APSL requires.
At this point I've reached the limits of my legal knowledge (IANAL,
after all). I'll see what the Apple Legal people say. It'll be a
expect everyone to go click "I Agree."
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
According to Jules Bean:
> Forcing a report at every stage of the way is too much of an
> impediment, IMO.
The APSL is satisfied if you just automatically make diffs with a cron
job, and put them at the same URL every night.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
g universities and other large
organizations, so the fact that they'd miss the little guys might not
bug them very much.
I'll try it. >>agenda
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg:
> > Apple's mostly concerned with big universities and other large
> > organizations,...
>
> They think that IBM or The University of Michigan are going to distribute
> modified APSL code and they will be unable to get a
s
a license, and license text is not protected by copyright. Maybe the
GPL doesn't like being altered, but it can't stop the alteration.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
ey couldn't just remove it. And they showed they were willing to
remove unpopular clauses when possible: the export clause is gone.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
is clause of the APSL *necessary*.
> > Are you a lawyer?
>
> No. Are you willing to trust lawyers? I'm not.
Mistrusting everyone who's passed a bar exam is silly. Individuals
and pseudo-individuals like corportations should be trusted in varying
degrees according to their indiv
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> &g
3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> > > suspension.
>
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This pretty much matches the real world. Again, all Apple is doing
> > here is spelling out what would otherwise have to be fou
r that it will make a judgment.
> > > > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> > > > > suspension.
>
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First, IANAL. Second, it's not a copyright question, it
even viable
or excellent licenses may have flaws that other licences address. And
the nature and likelihood of legal threats varies over time.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to the real culprits that have made
> > this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
>
> You have a legal opinion on this? Case law? Relevant statutes?
"Ya got me."
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> > similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
>
> No.
OK, point taken. The GPL is a tool of social change, and as such, it
u
According to John Hasler:
> Besides, even if I do pay him that $100,000 and get a license to use
> his patent, my license to use the Apple code that implements it is
> still suspended.
Quite possibly.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&q
According to Chris Lawrence:
> (Having said that, I'm not sure that it's legit to make exceptions
> to the GPL, especially if the author used anyone else's code in the
> module...)
For his own code, of course he can -- witness Qt exemptions. For
others' code, I
According to Joseph Carter:
> Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
Well, you could use the term "OSI-Certified Open Source" as an
unambiguous description of open source licenses. (Unless you don't
like OSI's certifications, of course.)
--
Chip Salzenbe
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:20:23PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > According to Joseph Carter:
> > > Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
> >
> > Well, you could use the term "OSI-Certified Open Source" as an
&g
40 matches
Mail list logo
