Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
Andrew C. Oliver
acoliver at buni.org
Tue Jan 23 04:27:01 UTC 2007
Please calm down.
Rather than defend yourself (which seems pointless, what is the score
and what happens if you loose?) can you perhaps try to stay on the topic
I can't sort what of the below has anything to do with this:
Can you try and do what Ben tried to do for you, rather than score
points against him,
I'm not trying to ruffle feathers just keep this on track.
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
>> Rick Moen is the most prominent representative of those who believe
>> that OSD #6 should be interpreted as forbidding restrictions whose
>> effect is to render code unpalatable for certain purposes....
> This fundamentally misrepresents what I said. Thus, I find myself in
> the undesired position of clarifying yet again.
> As a reminder, in that subthread, at that time we were discussing
> MuleSource's MPL 1.1 + "Exhibit B" licence -- not GAP. I pointed out
> that the licensor's _explicitly_ avowed intent (in its Exhibit B clause)
> is to make usage of the covered code so impractical for third-party
> commercial users that they would be driven to purchase separate,
> different commercial-use licences for any such usage models.
> I pointed out that OSD#6 is, as clarified by among other things the
> posted rationale in the OSD Web text, specifically aimed against
> licences that impair usage in commerce.
> Plainly, not all conceivable mandatory-advertising clauses would be
> fairly interpreted as likely to impair use in commerce. (I suggested
> one such possible clause.) Plainly, MuleSource seeks explcitly to do
> so: The sponsoring firm has openly admitted that precise intent.
> Concerning GAP in distinction to MuleSource's "Exhibit B", I pointed out
> that a licensor invoking its wording...
> a display of the same size as found in the [original code] released by
> the original licensor
> ...could require all derivative works to sport a 500-point logo +
> company name + URL display, specifically to make commercial use
> impractical. I.e., the lack of any limit on size and promience
> (completely aside from the OSD#10 issue) provides a method for licensor
> to effectively prevent competing commercial use.
> You believe that doesn't contravene OSD#6 because commercial competitors
> merely don't WANT a 500-point competitor's logo, not that they CAN'T --
> an argument I consider self-parodying and make no further comment.
>> However one gets the same effect from taking any pair of incompatible
>> licenses and joining them together.
> This, however, is not a joining of two codebases under incompatible
> licences at all, but rather a defect in a derivative work formed
> entirely from code all under _one_ licence -- so your comment is
> I'm disappointed but not surprised that I'm having to repeat myself on
> this matter yet again. Please do not make necessary yet more iterations.
> Thank you.
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
More information about the License-discuss