I've now moved this thread to the wine-license list. I probably should have posted
there in the first place - an oversight on my part. Sorry.
Anyway . . .
> this license they can.
> > Under GPL and BSD the developer has absoutely no control or means to keep
> their work an open source becaus
Title: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License
Please take the discussion over to wine-license @ winehq.com
---
Brian Vincent
Copper Mountain Telecom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Schilling wrote:
Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from
> The problem with [L]GPL and BSD is that if someone does not turn in their
changes then the developer has no recourse to > enforce the requirment. Under
this license they can.
> Under GPL and BSD the developer has absoutely no control or means to keep
their work an open source because they
> can
Sent this to winehq.com, so sending it to winehq.org in case it bounces.
On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Richard Schilling wrote:
> > I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written
> > up.
> [ ... ]
>
> One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution
On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Richard Schilling wrote:
> > I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written
> > up.
> [ ... ]
>
> One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations."
> of your license fails to comply with OS
On 2004.01.24 17:45 Cordula's Web wrote:
> [This is OT for stable@ and wine-devel@, but let's contribute anyway...]
>
> > # Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the
> > GPL.
>
> Access to source coce, documentation etc... is also possible under the
> BSD lic
Hi guys,
First, someone who sends the same email to at least four mailing lists
(freebsd, wine-devel, postgresql-hackers and ossi) is a spammer in my
book. Replying to his email, especially to lists that are not relevant
(i.e. - any but ossi) is helping him along.
To answer his (asked) questio
From: Cordula's Web (cpghost_at_cordula.ws)
> # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into
the base product
This is the main difference between BSD and GPL, and you're using
the GPL model here. This is exacly what would prevent commercial
vendors from adopting this license
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
[ ... ]
One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations."
of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not re
[This is OT for stable@ and wine-devel@, but let's contribute anyway...]
> # Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL.
Access to source coce, documentation etc... is also possible under the
BSD license. Under the [L]GPL, it is mandatory.
> # Users may us
> Do we have any recource against him?
We could blacklist his email address from our mailing lists.
Ivan.
Not only is he spamming, he is also advocating a non-open source license
as if it is.
Do we have any recource against him?
Shachar
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up. It's called the Single Supplier Ope
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
It's called the Single Supplier Open Source License. I will be distributing software
under this license as well as the traditional Open Source licenses found at
opensource.org.
You can see a copy of the lic
14 matches
Mail list logo
