Re: Source licensing

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 22:03:34 CDT

If it were up to me I would think about points 1..5 of the Apache
License http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt. Obviously the verbage would
change slightly, but the salient points are that it requires any
derivative work to refer back to the copyright holder, and bars any
other similar projects from using the OVC "brand" name without prior
written approval.

On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 21:13, David Mertz wrote:
> On May 9, 2004, at 7:47 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> > How about, closed proprietary source, published proprietary source,
> > and free software?
>
> Those look like good phrases to me.
>
> > You mention a variety of "free" software. Which "free" software model
> > should be used for the licensing/ownership of UC-developed software?
>
> I actually don't care nearly as much as a lot of people. If I were
> making the decision all by myself, I'd probably say Public Domain (or
> BSDish... the 'B' in there being UC-Berkeley, after all).
>
> But when we went over the discussion back in August, a lot of
> developers felt strongly about the GPL's guarantee that proprietary
> companies not be able to incorporate our code into derived,
> closed/proprietary products. I'm certainly not against GPL either (or
> EVMPL, which isn't much different, and hopefully compatible).
>
> Something like Karl suggests--registering service marks or trademarks
> on "OVC compliant" or some logo--seems like a great idea to me. I've
> never been through ISO 9000 myself, but most people seem to shudder at
> those words :-). But he might be right about the political benefit of
> that.
>
> Even if a proprietary vendor used our code, they couldn't win an "OVC
> compliant" mark without meeting OVC standards. Obviously, those
> standards would need to be non-discriminatory; they might involve
> certification fees though. The real "value proposition" IMO should not
> be using some lines of code developed in EVM2003/OVC-reference-design,
> but in being able to claim OVC standards compliance legally.
>
> > Second, I wanted to make the distinction between VoteHere's approach
> > to published software, and the OVC's approach (cases 2 and 3 above).
> > Is such a distinction worthwhile? Thanks.
>
> I find pointing out the distinction between VoteHere's
> "look-but-don't-touch-and-sign-the-NDA" and OVC's EVMPL to be quite
> important. You've done a good job of describing the licensing space
> above.
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT