OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] License Feedback

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 15:52, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
>     I feel I must use a software license verbatum, and not mix or
>     match clauses. It seems obvious that off-the-shelf software is
>     inappropriate for use as-is in real-time or security intense
>     environments. Is there a specific reason for nuclear?

Offhand, I'm not quite sure, but I believe it has to do with fault
tolerance and high-availability requirements/claims in some sectors.  To
me, this is covered under the "AS IS" and the disclaimer of any express
or implied warranties.  However, I've seen this more than once, so I
thought I would mention it in case you hadn't seen it yourself.  Of
course, I read once that in every contract is the story of individual
loopholes used and subsequently closed in the next version, so maybe
this falls into that category.

>     You know, my concern is that that when I release software, and
>     when people adopt it, we've got a relationship of some sort.

Couldn't agree more with you on that one...
>     The argument the less said, the better, in the case of open
>     source, is one that appeals to me. I'm looking for something
>     striaght-forward, to reduce the opportunities for contention.

Interestingly enough, the current OpenBSD license referenced in the post
removed all of the clauses in previous versions of the BSD license, so
you might give it consideration as well.

>     Is this in the range of GNU to BSD? I, agree. I'm definately not
>     considering the GNU or LGPL. I don't know what it means for me
>     to accept patches under that license.

As I recall, it was not specific to any license, but was a general
comment.  Without starting an [L]GPL debate, there are some places
offering clarifications on the implications of these licenses.  If you
want, I can dig around and give you some pointers off-list.  Personally,
any of the GPL licenses were not what I wanted to use for my open source
work, but they aren't inherently bad licenses for the reasons outlined
in the OpenBSD posts.
>     I want my software to remain open to me.

As copyright owner, you will--unless you explicitly waive your
ownership.  Even if you later decide to change the licensing terms, you
can.  What happens next is dependent on the license you chose and if
anyone contributed work under a license which was incompatible with what
you wanted to do.  In the case of BSD-derived licenses, this shouldn't
be much of an issue.

>     Thanks for the insight.

Glad I could help. :)


The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS