* [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs @ 2004-03-23 20:39 Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-24 7:42 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-23 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, float). http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson It's open source. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs 2004-03-23 20:39 [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-24 7:42 ` Preben Randhol 2004-03-24 17:37 ` Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2004-03-24 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2004-03-23, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote: > I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for > persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, float). > > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson > > It's open source. Is it compatible with GPL ? I know there is a discussion about Ada Community License. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00140.html -- Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ () "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" /\ - Isaac Asimov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs 2004-03-24 7:42 ` Preben Randhol @ 2004-03-24 17:37 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-24 10:08 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-24 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > > I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for > > persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, float). > > > > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson > > > > It's open source. > > Is it compatible with GPL ? In what way? > I know there is a discussion about Ada Community License. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00140.html I'll check. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs 2004-03-24 17:37 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-24 10:08 ` Preben Randhol 2004-03-24 13:01 ` Marius Amado Alves [not found] ` <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2004-03-24 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2004-03-24, Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote: >> > I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for >> > persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, > float). >> > >> > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson >> > >> > It's open source. >> >> Is it compatible with GPL ? > > In what way? In the way that somebody wanted to use it in a non-commercial (GM)GPL program. I don't find any statements about this license. Neither is it on the OSI list as I can see. -- Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ () "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" /\ - Isaac Asimov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs 2004-03-24 10:08 ` Preben Randhol @ 2004-03-24 13:01 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-28 15:38 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Jacob Sparre Andersen [not found] ` <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-24 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson, http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson] > In the way that somebody wanted to use it in a non-commercial (GM)GPL > program. If it's non-commercial, just use it. > I don't find any statements about this license. There is some amount of discussion and commentary in SDC and OSI fora. > Neither is it on the OSI list as I can see. It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant. The SDC license breaches clause 6 of the OSD under a certain conservative interpretation of that clause, namely one whereby "restrict" means "requiring a separate deal". It seems this is the official interpretation by OSI. I'm liberal so I call it open source. It does not hurt any other clause of the OSD. The commercial-open source clash is still an open issue. Never mind. Just use it. If it's commercial, tell the authors. They'll cut you a fair deal. You'll not have to pay unless you get rich, and then it doesn't hurt you. That's the gist of it. Ignore the legalese. "Just do it." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-24 13:01 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-28 15:38 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran 2004-03-29 0:45 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2004-03-28 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Marius Amado Alves wrote: > [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson, > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson] > It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant. Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it. The OSI definition is the only generally accepted definition of the term �open source�, that I am aware of. Jacob -- My brain needs a "back" button so I can remember where I left my coffee mug. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-28 15:38 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 0:45 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Marius Amado Alves 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2004-03-28 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --] >> It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant. > >Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it. The >OSI definition is the only generally accepted definition of the term >�open source�, that I am aware of. Two common methods of signaling a special usage of a phrase are to enclose it in quotes, or to capitalize each word. Neither of those was done in this case, suggesting the author was not trying to use the term in its, sometimes, special meaning. Also, if someone wants to restrict usage of the phrase, they should trademark it. Of course someone might point out that, prior to Inflation of the Internet, lots of software was made available on BBSes etc, with source. open source open source open source open source open source open source ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran @ 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-29 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with some restrictions. I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business model. Given that the term has been in use to describe a variety of licenses well before anybody like the OSI decided to lay claim to the words, it is difficult to see how it is possible to start slapping some specialized meaning on it now and expect it to stick. I suppose they could go get a trademark on it and restrict people from sticking "Open Source(tm)" on their software unless it met certain criteria (or claiming that they have an "Ada(tm)" compiler unless it passes a validation suite? ;-) but that wouldn't preclude someone from using the words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to the user of the software. MDC tmoran@acm.org wrote: > Two common methods of signaling a special usage of a phrase are to > enclose it in quotes, or to capitalize each word. Neither of those was > done in this case, suggesting the author was not trying to use the term in > its, sometimes, special meaning. Also, if someone wants to restrict usage > of the phrase, they should trademark it. Of course someone might point > out that, prior to Inflation of the Internet, lots of software was made > available on BBSes etc, with source. > > open source open source open source open source open source open source -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-29 14:02 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner 2004-03-30 2:46 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Stephen Leake 2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen 2 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-29 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't > meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What > about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get > the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with > some restrictions. Several terms have been proposed in OSI and other fora, including "commercial open source" and "liberal source" I think. "Sharable software/source" is too close to Microsoft's "shared source". (Please note I have nothing against Microsoft or shared source or any other Microsoft practiced business model.) > I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open > Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business > model... Nobody legally owns the term yet, and I understand OSI does not intend to do it. > ...that wouldn't preclude someone from using the > words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English > meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to > the user of the software. That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Reasons include my believe that SDC Conditions breaching clause 6 of the OSD is a technicality that will be surpassed eventually by rewording the Conditions (or the OSD), for example by focusing on commercial use and then *un*restricting non-commercial use. In sum I believe we don't need a new term because commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial use to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly phrased and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or mugs) unpractical. Or e.g. SDC Conditions are badly phrased and breach clause 6. Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source / free software commentary texts. Even the famous "free speech, not free beer" saying encompasses this possibility. Curiously enough the very rationale for clause 6 is also about commercial use. So it's simply a legal cunundrum that I believe the open source community will solve enventually. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-29 14:02 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-29 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw) In my mind, "open source" ought to imply that if I acquire the rights to use some software, that I also acquire the source code that goes with it. I don't think it ought to mean that a) I pay no money for the software, b) I may not be restricted from giving it away to others or c) I may not be restricted from reselling the software. I can easily see reasons I would a) be willing to pay for software, b) agree not to pass along copies to others or c) agree not to resell the software in some manner. If I buy software from some small company I may want source to protect me in the event that they go out of business, or can't/won't make changes I think I need, or I may simply need source because I'm incorporating it in a larger work. Why can't it be "Open Source(non-tm)" if you sell me a site license for your software and include the source code? The important condition here is that I've got "Open" (visible, accessible, midifiable, extensible) "Source" (high-level language, human-readable, modifiable, recompilable, original design material.) That I paid you money for it probably implies you shouldn't call it "Free(beer)" software. That I can't give copies of it away to others probably implies you shouldn't call it "Sharable" software. That I can't sell your work to others without some separate deal simply means you have not given up ownership of your intellectual property to me - I don't know if there is a word to describe that kind of software but perhaps there ought to be. "Resellable"? But in my mind, "Open Source" ought to imply that I get the source code and can make use of it within my organization. If someone wants to insist that "Open Source(tm)" must have some specific meaning beyond what one might infer from what the English language definitions of the words might imply, then I think that must be done in the context of a specific license that grants specific rights - and ought to come with some form of the "(tm)" qualifier. Otherwise, people (like me) are going to take the words to mean what they customarily mean in English and subject it to our own interpretations & use. MDC Marius Amado Alves wrote: > > That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Reasons include my > believe that SDC Conditions breaching clause 6 of the OSD is a technicality > that will be surpassed eventually by rewording the Conditions (or the OSD), > for example by focusing on commercial use and then *un*restricting > non-commercial use. In sum I believe we don't need a new term because > commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial use > to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main > tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly phrased > and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or mugs) > unpractical. Or e.g. SDC Conditions are badly phrased and breach clause 6. > Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source / > free software commentary texts. Even the famous "free speech, not free beer" > saying encompasses this possibility. Curiously enough the very rationale for > clause 6 is also about commercial use. So it's simply a legal cunundrum that > I believe the open source community will solve enventually. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-29 14:02 ` Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner 2004-03-31 11:27 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistentuntyped graphs) Marius Amado Alves 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2004-03-31 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:08:22 +0100, Marius Amado Alves wrote: > That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Of course not. You want the popular word with good connotations attached to you, whether or not you fit the definition. > In sum I believe we don't need a new term because > commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial use > to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main > tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly phrased > and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or mugs) > unpractical. Not at all. It was something done very intentionally. To make that claim is like claiming that forcing you to define your variables in Ada instead of letting them default to integers was unintended; it shows that you don't understand the reasoning behind the whole system. > Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source / > free software commentary texts. Right, just like ACT does. There are many people who make a profit from selling open source software under the GPL; just because you don't like how they do it doesn't mean the licenses are "badly phrased" or poorly designed, it merely means that you disagree with how they are designed. Let's be honest; for all the talk about the words not being a trademark, if ESR had not came up with open source as a synonym for free software, would you honestly be using it here today? Are you actually using it in an older meaning, or just using it because it sounds cool and will attract people? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistentuntyped graphs) 2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner @ 2004-03-31 11:27 ` Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-31 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > > That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. > > Of course not. You want the popular word with good connotations > attached to you, whether or not you fit the definition. A certain interpretation of 1/10 of a certain definition against a certain phrasing of a principle. As I said the phrasing might change. I whish I had a percentage of people who get this impression of 'bad will' from the SDC Conditions. Note the Conditions do not contain the term "open source". > > In sum I believe we don't need a new term because > > commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial use > > to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main > > tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly phrased > > and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or mugs) > > unpractical. > > Not at all. It was something done very intentionally. Sure, GPL is perfect. 80% of people use, so it must be, right? Think for yourself, man. And/or see the discussions in OSI, SDC and other fora. > > Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source / > > free software commentary texts. > > Right, just like ACT does. Just like ACT does what? Sell open source software? They don't. They sell support. > There are many people who make a profit from > selling open source software under the GPL; Nobody profitably sells open source software under the GPL. They sell suport and coffee mugs. > Let's be honest; for all the talk about the words not being a trademark, > if ESR had not came up with open source as a synonym for free software, > would you honestly be using it here today? Irrelevant. > Are you actually using it in an > older meaning, or just using it because it sounds cool and will attract > people? I use it to quickly convey the meaning. And not any older one. What do you find in the SDC Conditions that is so against it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-30 2:46 ` Stephen Leake 2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2004-03-30 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but > doesn't meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open > Source"? That's what capitals are for in English; "Open Source" is the specific term, "open source" is the general. Get used to it :). -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-30 2:46 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Stephen Leake @ 2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-30 15:07 ` Licensing issues Florian Weimer 2004-03-31 7:36 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) David Starner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-30 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. Even then, the government may not grant the exclusive right because it may have been in too much use in that same context before someone wanted to own it. (People have been calling things "Open Source" before OSI decided they wanted to be the exclusive definer of the term.) Let's see how far Donald Trump gets with trying to trademark "You're Fired!" ;-) MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > That's what capitals are for in English; "Open Source" is the specific > term, "open source" is the general. Get used to it :). > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues 2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-30 15:07 ` Florian Weimer 2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus 2004-03-31 7:36 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) David Starner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2004-03-30 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim > ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next > to it. This is not the way trademark law works. You can own a non-registrated trademark. If you have to register it before you can file suit (I don't know if it's necessary), this is nothing more than just a technicality. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues 2004-03-30 15:07 ` Licensing issues Florian Weimer @ 2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus 2004-03-31 0:07 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-03 17:10 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2004-03-30 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: : Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: : :> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim :> ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next :> to it. : : This is not the way trademark law works. You can own a : non-registrated trademark. Do you have any information about the status of http://opensource.org/trademarks/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues 2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2004-03-31 0:07 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-03 17:10 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-31 0:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > Do you have any information about the status of > http://opensource.org/trademarks/ Last time I checked (in OSI's license-discuss forum, a dozen or so moons ago), there weren't any registrations with any governmental entity or some such. Neither any intent to do so. Now that you made me visit the page, I noticed something interesting. Since they ask to link to the marks on their server, and not copy them, they have a track of all accesses to all Open Source sites. Cool. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues 2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus 2004-03-31 0:07 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-04-03 17:10 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2004-04-03 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes: > Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > : Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > : > :> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim > :> ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next > :> to it. > : > : This is not the way trademark law works. You can own a > : non-registrated trademark. > > Do you have any information about the status of > http://opensource.org/trademarks/ For "OSI Certified" and "Open Source", the USPTO status is "Abandoned: Applicant failed to respond to an Office action." (At least for the trademark applications by OSI and SPI, there are lots of other trademarks containing the phrase "Open Source".) There are a few related trademarks in German. There's a recent application for "Unbreakable Open Source" by SuSE, Soluzione Projekt GmbH has applied for "Open Source Academy". "CESAD Certified Engineer for Open Source based Web Services Application Development" and "CEfOSS Certified Engineer for Open Source Software" are already registered trademarks, as far as I can see. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-30 15:07 ` Licensing issues Florian Weimer @ 2004-03-31 7:36 ` David Starner 2004-03-31 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2004-03-31 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:52 +0000, Marin David Condic wrote: > Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership > of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. No; the (tm) is free; it's the (R) that you have to pay for. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-31 7:36 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) David Starner @ 2004-03-31 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-31 14:16 ` Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-31 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) O.K. Fair enough. But I didn't really want to talk about the technicalities of the law - rather the intent. If a term is commonly used in a given context, the law isn't going to let you trademark it except under possibly some very limited circumstances. The reason is that nobody wants to start prohibiting people from using common terminology or it starts abridging free speech, becomes impossible to police, etc. Consider when Al Franken got sued by Fox TV over use of "Fair and Balanced" - Fox got laughed out of court. You can't go around prohibiting somebody from using certain words because you don't like the way they use them. As for "Open Source"? What if I put up a website with my definition of "Open Source"? Does that make it somehow "official" and allow me to insist that anyone using the term do so only if it meets my definition? What's the difference between me and OSI? Is it that they are more guys? Is it that they have more money? Is it that their web site was up first? I don't think any of that would carry much weight in court seeing as how people were calling things "Open Source" long before OSI showed up. I don't have a problem with people wanting to be clear about what they mean when describing their software or anything else. I just don't think its right to tell someone they can't use some terminology to describe their software because it doesn't satisfy someone else who put up a web site. Where would we be if we tried to police the same thing with respect to calling some body of software "Object Oriented"? Who gets to decide the meaning of that term and decide if someone's software meets the proper conditions? MDC David Starner wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:52 +0000, Marin David Condic wrote: > > >>Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership >>of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. > > > No; the (tm) is free; it's the (R) that you have to pay for. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 2004-03-31 12:27 ` Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-31 14:16 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-01 16:48 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-31 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > What's the difference between me and OSI? Is it that they are more guys? > Is it that they have more money? Is it that their web site was up first? I'd say the latter :-) Actually the first important website was the FSF's. There's really no difference between free software as per the FSF and open source as per the OSI. When you ask the parties they say there's a "political" difference. What that means exactly I was unable to ascertain. Maybe the FSF was not willing to promote the OSD. Maybe OSI did not want to be a part of FSF from the start. So there's two separate institutions now. Actually more, e.g. Creative Commons. Fortunately they all get along fine, or so it seems. SDC is supposed to get along fine too, and I believe it does, except for clashes with the extreme school of though that says open source software is not to be sold, period. > ...I just don't think > its right to tell someone they can't use some terminology to describe > their software because it doesn't satisfy someone else who put up a web > site. It's not right, but they didn't just "put up a web site". FSF and OSI have a very large user base. That is what makes them important. The snowball effect. You can "put up a web site", but if it doesn't snowball it won't make a difference. That's the present situation of the SDC. A snowflake. I learn a bit more everytime this open source issue comes up. I hope to learn how to make a clear commercial open source snowflake. One that will roll. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped 2004-03-31 14:16 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-04-01 16:48 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2004-04-01 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Marius Amado Alves wrote: > Actually the first important website was the FSF's. There's really no > difference between free software as per the FSF and open source as per the > OSI. When you ask the parties they say there's a "political" difference. > What that means exactly I was unable to ascertain. Maybe the FSF was not > willing to promote the OSD. Maybe OSI did not want to be a part of FSF from > the start. So there's two separate institutions now. The political difference is that FSF intends/wants to create a world where you can use only free software. The OSI focuses on free/open alternatives to parts of the unfree software landscape. Right now there is very little difference in practice between the two, but before the LGPL (library Gnu public license), there was often a contamination effect if you used Gnu tools to create your (commercial) software. In theory this can still happen. In practice, almost all free software tools now use the LGPL (or the GNAT/Ada equivalent that allows generic instantiation) on any files where this could be an issue. So it is still the case that you can create FSF "free software" tools that cannot be used to create commercial software. The OSI rules deprecate this possibility. However, as was said, the two get along just fine in practice. Very few people intentionally "take advantage" of this greater freedom (or more restrictive licensing, you choose the connotations) offered by the FSF policy. -- Robert I. Eachus "The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand." -- Dick Cheney ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-30 2:46 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Stephen Leake @ 2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen 2004-03-31 12:31 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2004-03-30 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <40681380.4080901@noplace.com>, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't > meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? Who are the "owners" of those words ? How does one apply for word ownership ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped 2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2004-03-31 12:31 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2004-03-31 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Apparently, its done by putting up a web site and enlisting the Word Police to go looking for the dissenters. :-) MDC Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > Who are the "owners" of those words ? > > How does one apply for word ownership ? -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) 2004-03-28 15:38 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Jacob Sparre Andersen 2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran @ 2004-03-29 0:45 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-01 17:09 ` Licensing issues Jacob Sparre Andersen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-29 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada > > [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson, > > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson] > > > It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant. > > Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it. *I mean it.* But OK, I'll refrain from using it to give a top level explanation of the licensing terms spontaneously. This probably implies I won't be giving such spontaneous explanation at all, because the only alternate term I know is "free software" and I don't want to employ it. But note the explanation above was not the spontaneous one. It was a reply to some request for explanation. In those case I will continue to use the term open source liberally, accompanied by the explanation. I know this might give me a "reputation". Too bad. My commitment is to reason, not to what "people say". There are alternate views to the open source business model than selling support and cofee mugs. OSI did not invent open source. Nobody invented open source, actually. We're making the rules as we go along. Nobody is perfect. GPL, particularly, is rather defective. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Licensing issues 2004-03-29 0:45 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-04-01 17:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2004-04-01 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Marius Amado Alves wrote: > OSI did not invent open source. As far as I know they actually _did_ invent the term - and came with a quite precise definition of what they meant by it. Using "open source" in a different meaning is like calling any random compiler an "Ada compiler". Jacob -- "The current state of knowledge can be summarised thus: In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt>]
* [Announce] Mneson Manual [not found] ` <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt> @ 2004-03-24 19:27 ` Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2004-03-24 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada The Mneson Manual is just out. http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-03 17:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-03-23 20:39 [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-24 7:42 ` Preben Randhol 2004-03-24 17:37 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-24 10:08 ` Preben Randhol 2004-03-24 13:01 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-28 15:38 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Jacob Sparre Andersen 2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran 2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-29 14:02 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner 2004-03-31 11:27 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistentuntyped graphs) Marius Amado Alves 2004-03-30 2:46 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Stephen Leake 2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-30 15:07 ` Licensing issues Florian Weimer 2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus 2004-03-31 0:07 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-03 17:10 ` Florian Weimer 2004-03-31 7:36 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) David Starner 2004-03-31 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-31 14:16 ` Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-01 16:48 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped Robert I. Eachus 2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen 2004-03-31 12:31 ` Marin David Condic 2004-03-29 0:45 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Marius Amado Alves 2004-04-01 17:09 ` Licensing issues Jacob Sparre Andersen [not found] ` <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt> 2004-03-24 19:27 ` [Announce] Mneson Manual Marius Amado Alves
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox