On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote: > This strikes me as oversimplistic. What if a commercial enterprise > wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on > open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors? I'm > not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of > license and still retain those options. -- Nathaniel I can cite an example of a commercial enterprise with copyrighted GPL'd products who has some emasures to prevent this. They sell clusters, and distribute the source code directly only to customers. If you are an open source programmer, get to know them, and ask nicely, they will give you a copy for your purposes... i.e. if you want to "roll your own" cluster. One could also probably acquire a copy from one of their customers, but a vast majority of their solution is hardware also, in the form of master node and diskless processing nodes. > > On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:55 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxx>: > >> I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could > >> come to a consensus about what their requirements are. > > > > That's not hard. We need licensing conditions that don't require us > > to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit > > re-use of the code by restricting the area of application. > > -- > > <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf