• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: ANN: xlinkit 4.3 released
• From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 14:07:30 -0000
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>, technical <technical@x...>
• Organization: University College London
• References: <1005338635.1850.80.camel@w...> <p04330100b812e079e8c9@[192.168.254.4]>

> Intersting tech perhaps, but you would please remove the claim that
> this is open source from your web site? Between patents and the
> restrictions on commercial use, your license does not come close to
> meeting the open source definition
> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html)

This was a versioning error on the web site (we have had to review our
license), which also says that it is released under a "liberal source
license" (http://www.elj.com/lss/definition.html).  This has been rectified.

Christian Nentwich
p.s. We could note however that the license disagrees with only one point of
the open source definition (restricting
commercial use), and hence does come close. Patents are not mentioned at all
in this definition as far as I can see.

• References:
  • ANN: xlinkit 4.3 released
    • From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>
  • Re: ANN: xlinkit 4.3 released
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: RE: Browser-based XML Editor?
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: xlinkit 4.3 released
• Next by thread: XML and "Who's on first?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread