From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] license Message-ID: <20020909164708.C12632@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Eric Grosse on Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:06:49AM -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:47:08 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e7893dc4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Eric Grosse wrote: > The license change happened while a number of us were out of town > and we're working to get it reconsidered. Please give us a few > more days to try to straighten this out. > Aren't we in a situation where the licence ('scuse the spelling) is trying to address conflicting objectives? I don't for one moment believe that the users community should dictate the terms of the licence, but perhaps we can isolate portions of the code that Lucent believes ought to be protected and release as much as possible with only OSI-style restrictions. And on that score, I have cartographic (maps, I suppose) that were released under the 2nd Edition licence. Was it licencing or pure practicality that kept the data from being released under 3ed or 4ed? I suppose bringing up the subject of licence terms surrounding Alef won't win me any friends, either :-) ++L