license-discuss  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Ben Hilburn
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Russell McOrmond
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Russell McOrmond
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Russell McOrmond
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses John Sullivan
  • Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Government licenses Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI Lawrence Rosen
• Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Lawrence Rosen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Lawrence Rosen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Lawrence Rosen
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Richard Fontana
• [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Ben Hilburn
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list Ben Hilburn
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Stephen Paul Weber
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD] Simon Phipps
• [License-discuss] Don't respond Bruce Perens via License-discuss
• [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? - Yes, if he has not signed over the copyright. informator
• [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Pamela Chestek
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Pamela Chestek
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Scott Peterson
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Henrik Ingo
• [License-discuss] The Scope of the OSD (Was For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License) Pamela Chestek
  • Re: [License-discuss] The Scope of the OSD (Was For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License) Richard Fontana
• [License-discuss] Open Sourcing a SW with the GUI based on proprietary libraries Paolo Palazzari
  • Re: [License-discuss] Open Sourcing a SW with the GUI based on proprietary libraries Bruce Perens via License-discuss
• [License-discuss] April 2019 Summary Lukas Atkinson
• [License-discuss] FAQs/steward links on opensource.org? Luis Villa
• [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bruce Perens via License-discuss
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility Bryan Christ
  • Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and Apache 2 Compatibility Thorsten Glaser
• [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? Antoine Thomas
  • Re: [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? Kevin P. Fleming
  • Re: [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? Brendan Hickey
  • Re: [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? Antoine Thomas
• [License-discuss] Non-Commercial doesn't compose (and it never will) [now on the right list] Christopher Lemmer Webber
• [License-discuss] March 2019 Summary Lukas Atkinson
• [License-discuss] GPL developer protections: Is limitation/disclaimer of warranty legally non-binding? Patrick Schleizer
  • Re: [License-discuss] GPL developer protections: Is limitation/disclaimer of warranty legally non-binding? VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] GPL developer protections: Is limitation/disclaimer of warranty legally non-binding? Patrick Schleizer
• [License-discuss] Are limitation/disclaimer of warranty clauses legally non-binding due to missing browsewrap/clickwrap agreement? Patrick Schleizer
  • Re: [License-discuss] Are limitation/disclaimer of warranty clauses legally non-binding due to missing browsewrap/clickwrap agreement? Thorsten Glaser
  • Re: [License-discuss] Are limitation/disclaimer of warranty clauses legally non-binding due to missing browsewrap/clickwrap agreement? Patrick Schleizer
• [License-discuss] The GPL Meets the UCC: Does Free Software Come with a Warranty of No Infringement of Patents and Copyrights? Patrick Schleizer
• [License-discuss] Doese GPLv3 allow misrepresentation and grant rights under trademark law? Patrick Schleizer
  • Re: [License-discuss] Doese GPLv3 allow misrepresentation and grant rights under trademark law? John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] Doese GPLv3 allow misrepresentation and grant rights under trademark law? Bruce Perens
• Re: [License-discuss] discussion of tools Ben Hilburn
• [License-discuss] Seeking public comments for the OpenChain Specification version 2.0 Gisi, Mark
• Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor John Sullivan
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Pamela Chestek
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Chris Jerdonek
  • [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Chris Jerdonek
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Pamela Chestek
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy Chris Jerdonek
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor Bruce Perens
• [License-discuss] Why GPLv3 does not have a indemnification clause by default? Patrick Schleizer
• [License-discuss] moderator information outdated Patrick Schleizer
  • Re: [License-discuss] moderator information outdated Andrew DeMarsh
  • Re: [License-discuss] moderator information outdated Brendan Hickey
  • Re: [License-discuss] moderator information outdated Simon Phipps
  • Re: [License-discuss] moderator information outdated Pamela Chestek
• [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Brendan Hickey
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Patrick Schleizer
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Henrik Ingo
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor John Cowan
  • Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor Bruce Perens
• [License-discuss] Fwd: Re: Fw: #905674: parallel: move to nonfree Chris Lamb
  • Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Re: Fw: #905674: parallel: move to nonfree Bruce Perens
• [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Ben Hilburn
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Lawrence Rosen
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Smith, McCoy
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Mike Milinkovich
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Ben Hilburn
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Bruce Perens
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Andrew DeMarsh
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Tzeng, Nigel H.
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] John Sullivan
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Chris Jerdonek
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Ben Hilburn
  • [License-discuss] Fwd: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Richard Fontana
  • Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Luis Villa
  • Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Kevin P. Fleming
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Thorsten Glaser
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Thorsten Glaser
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Michael Downey
  • Re: [License-discuss] Discourse hosting Rick Moen
  • Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)] Luis Villa
• [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License VanL
  • Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License Henrik Ingo

• Earlier messages
• Later messages