Subject: Re: EROS license
From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen Sitaker)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:11:13 -0400 (EDT)

DJ Delorie writes:
> Section 2.3 seems to imply that any contributor using the software in
> a purely libre yet commercial (i.e. gpl for a fee) way, lets the
> initial developer use their contributed code in a proprietary way.
> 
> Yes?  No?

My understanding was that the whole purpose of that section was to let
Jonathan use any contributed code in a proprietary way.  It's not
surprising nobody is working on the code as a result.  :)

Alan Cox just gave the OS architecture high praise on the linux-kernel
mailing list; he called it "Hurd done right" and seemed interested in
helping.  Except for the license, of course.  :)

I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license.  For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions will get sued in the following case:

IBM releases OpenDX.
Party A adds features they own patents on to OpenDX, releasing OpenDX'.
Party B adds more features to OpenDX', doesn't touch party A's code or
add more code that infringes Party A's patents, and releases OpenDX''.

This same problem seems to be there in the license they're thinking
about using on Jikes and VMailer:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9906/msg00213.html

-- 
<kragen@pobox.com>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
According to my medieval text in the seventh century a finalizer raised a
dead object named Gorth who infected every computer in Cappidocia ending
Roman rule in the region.  -- Charles Fiterman on gclist@iecc.com