Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

    Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

    Phoronix: Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

    Some user, after having communicated with Richard Stallman, decided to write a new open-source license. This new open-source license is quite simple and is being called Maximal...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5NTQ

  • M1kkko
    replied
    Wow, it's really been 5 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Blah Blah Blah
    That's quite a necrobump.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Sergio, seeing as incoherent as your post is, no doubt you percieve me to be incoherent. But that is in YOUR mind, not mine. Everything of my research is completely logical, and coherent. And I am not a kid, and THAT you should take as a proof of your delusion, and how your sight is failing you.

    Peace Be With You.
    And with this kind of response I make my point...
    So you actually think you are a grown up, and that your arguments are logical and coherent, but you have failed to convince yet one person in this forum, and most arguments given by people here about "open source" and the like are far more simple, logical and convincing than anything you have said.
    Time to wake up, kid.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    I renamed and improved the licence.

    "This program, plugin or function is licenced under
    The Beneficient Open-Source Licence.

    That means that it?s source is released
    and shall stay available openly,
    to benefit humankind, in the path of God.
    And that shall apply to modifications,
    derivations, and branches.

    Peace Be With You."

    I ultimately plan to move my plugins to it. Read my post on how to move entire linux to it, aswell. http://paradoxuncreated.com/Blog/wordpress/?p=5801

    Peace Be With You.
    Uwaysi (author of the licence)
    You sir are a fucking idiot.
    In the path of god? LOL!
    Wake up, reality is calling!

    We don't need any more vanity licenses, it is counter-productive to the cause of free open source software. Use an already existing established license written by lawyers that will actually stand up in court.

    License proliferation is hampering the free open source movement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Paradox Uncreated, kid, I admire your confidence, and I'd say, from the way you debate, that you are still young.
    I think that you have got this perfect world, but you have gotta understand that it only exists in your mind; of course for you it makes perfect sense, but for others it is just a childish, even contradictory world (the way you have exposed it). If you can't make yourself clear and concise, that means you are doing something wrong. So far you are so desperate that people get you, that you end up (don't take this the wrong way) making a fool. Obviously your logic, as you have exposed it, is far from superior; you express a bunch of unrelated ideas, but yet anything substantial.
    I invite you to "take one or two steps back" (it's hard to do this when you are so sure you are right), and then look at the picture again; you will be surprised how fool you can be.
    I hope you take my criticism in a good way, and sorry for my bad english.
    Be truly in peace.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    If you want a relatively simple license that keeps your code out of big companies, there's always the JSON license.

    http://www.json.org/license.html

    Unfortunately the license terms had some other side effects as well :

    http://www.wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt...on-google-code

    Leave a comment:


  • zerothis
    replied
    I'd like to go on record as at least one legitimate reply.

    Originally posted by randomizer View Post
    They have the right to change the license of the code that they distribute, but they can't change the license for the code that is already in the open and the derivatives of that.
    Actually, its been done. there's this recent news <http://www.geekosystem.com/take-work...public-domain/>. But this is hardly the first time. For a mind boggling explanation of how all copyright law in the US is unconstitutional, whimsically retroactive (retroactive law is specifically forbidden by the US constitution), legally invalid, and still going to be enforced, read this: <http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/ja...Vashcroft.html>

    I'll sumerise for those who don't want to read the whole thing
    • Congress had/has the right to enact copyrights, trademarks, and patents. [ ] {place green checkmark here, ring small bell}
    • Congress did not/has not the right to apply copyrights retroactively, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, their first set of laws on the matter) [X] {press buzzer}
    • Congress did not/has not the right to extend existing copyrights, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, all their extensions of their fist set of laws on the matter) [X] {press buzzer}
    • All of the congressional extensions of existing copyrights are based on extensions of the unconstitutional extension they could not make of unconstitutional laws concerning copyrights, retroactively or not, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, all extensions of their extensions) [X] {press buzzer}
    • Congress may now continue as they were [?] {A hollow voice says plugh}
    Last edited by zerothis; 05-06-2012, 04:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • randomizer
    replied
    Congratulations to the author. You are still topping the "Hottest Messages" on LKML even though there's not a single reply

    Leave a comment:


  • randomizer
    replied
    Originally posted by zerothis View Post
    If Oracle buys the company (and the companies copyrighted Maximal works) what stops them from changing to a different proprietary license? As the copyright holder, they have the legal right to change the license they use for works they own.
    They have the right to change the license of the code that they distribute, but they can't change the license for the code that is already in the open and the derivatives of that. The GPL itself covers this point explicitly I believe, so it's more enforceable there, but I think that most courts would also uphold the right for existing works to keep their existing license. It's impossible to enforce it in any other way, although Oracle is one of the few companies that I wouldn't put it past to try.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X