On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of
> patent licenses (in Section 4.a). That may mean that it doesn't
> address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there
> might be USG patents covering the non-US
On 06/01/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> GPLv3 (and the variants, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) do *not* permit
> "Additional Terms" (despite the section header called "Additional
> Terms"); they permit "Additional Permissions" which are defined in
> the license, Sec 7, as "terms that supplement the terms
On 06/01/17 10:55, Rick Moen wrote:
> Would that it were so. Lingora characterise their additions near the top as
> 'Additional Terms pursuant to Section 7 of said license', and clearly
> intend this to refer _not_ to additional permissions, but rather to
> this bit slightly further on, in 7b):
On 06/01/17 03:48, Marc Laporte wrote:
> The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms":
> http://obm.org/content/obm-license
That page says:
"OBM is an Free and Open Source messaging and collaboration software,
distributed under the GNU Affero GPL v3 License terms, with Additional
Terms
On 25/07/16 17:33, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> OK, I see where you're coming from, I'm just not comfortable with it. I'm
> much more comfortable with a single license that covers everything. I also
> know that our lawyers would be more comfortable with a single document
On 25/07/16 16:12, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> Protections from liability from anyone that uses our code, for one thing. I
> am not a lawyer, but as I understand it putting stuff in the public domain
> does not release you from liability, so without some kind of notice the
On 25/07/16 15:12, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> Even though it will be headache to do so, we still need to. USG works that
> don't have copyright attached must still have a license/contract that offers
> the same protections as one would expect from the Apache 2.0 license.
On 25/07/16 13:46, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> 1) Put out a notice to the world that the code covered under the license is
> 'AS-IS'; the whole 'no warranty' part in the Apache 2.0 license. This needs
> to cover not only the USG, but also any contributors. The USG is (in
On 22/07/16 22:01, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> Unfortunately, we cannot directly use the Apache 2 license for all of our
> code. Most of our researchers work for the US Federal Government and under US
> copyright law any works they produce during the course of their duties do
On 02/10/15 14:26, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> What if we accepted contributions from individuals but only
> "acknowledged" their work in a special "THANKS" or "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT"
> file without modifying at all the "(c) TheCompany" in the license
> itself and therefore not granting any ownership rights to
On 02/10/15 11:05, David Woolley wrote:
> Public domain dedication is impossible in Europe. There is some doubt
> as whether it is even possible in the USA. The nearest you would get is
> something like CC0, which attempts to disclaim as much IPR as it is
> possible to disclaim.
That is indeed
On 01/10/15 14:27, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> distributed) product. Given this, let me rephrase: Can we allow these
> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS
> file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our
> company? Because that's really all we're after
On 02/10/15 15:36, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> So just to be sure, if the contributors waiver their ownership rights,
> then the 3-clause BSD stands and if users do not acknowledge usage of
> the software in their binary distributions it is up to the company to
> choose whether to enforce or not that
On 11/06/15 20:53, Gareth Edwards wrote:
Over on my Reddit post (http://redd.it/39gpcy) there's a reply that as
Rapid is a server platform it doesn't get distributed like a typical
desktop application so GPLv3 doesn't apply, and AGPLv3 should be used
instead.
Well, it depends what you want to
On 11/06/15 11:44, Cinly Ooi wrote:
If you choose GPLv3, then anyone down stream are required to use GPLv3.
That's the requirement of the license.
However, in general, using open source does not mean your program will
have to be open source.
That depends on what the program does, as the
On 09/04/15 15:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example,
when describing WxWidgets:
Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in
special circumstances.
So, at least according to
On 03/02/15 17:21, Zluty Sysel wrote:
I have a set of source files that I would like to open source using a
standard 3-Clause BSD but my company would not like that a certain set
of Private Keys used for authentication be disclosed along with the
code.
You don't need to write a new license
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote:
Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s
source code, but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a
different license.
What do you mean by use? Do you mean use a different license for
project B when distributed as a whole, or
On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
NOTE 1: None of these license texts should be used as a license until
further notice! These texts are works in
On 14/11/14 19:55, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
In our case the majority of the software being evaluated for open
sourcing is framework and utility functions that we believe would
provide value to our community. We wish to insure that this framework
remains open source and commonly used but that
On 17/11/14 15:02, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
As long as the core vote counting and verification bits are open source
and can be externally verified then one vendor providing more vote
planning aids, analytics, financial tracking and collaboration tools are
part of their comprehensive suite as a
On 23/04/14 16:59, Buck Golemon wrote:
and another
package's license says modified versions cannot contain additional
attribution requirements.
I don't know of any licenses which say that. Can you point me at an example?
Gerv
___
On 16/03/14 13:31, Sebastian Hoffmann wrote:
I think, Wikipedia for instance treats screenshots in the meaning of
derived work, which is sometimes covered by OS licenses.
As a result the screenshot has a remark (when you click on it), that it
has the same license as the originating OS program.
On 13/03/14 10:26, Albert Vilella wrote:
markedly opposed opinions around the license. This is, people that
think it's OSI-compliant, and people that think it's nothing close to
being OSI-compliant:
How could anyone think that a license which says use or sale of the
Software as part of a SaaS
On 24/01/14 08:16, xxl...@web.de wrote:
It seems to me as if a Creative Commons BY license is quite much what I
need. Does it cover my constraints?
It may, but CC recommend against using it for software:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F
I
On 08/11/13 09:36, David Woolley wrote:
It's very common. Microsoft use a lot of BSD code and I'd be surprised
if they hadn't modified it, and therefore become one of the copyright
owners. I hadn't noticed Microsoft being shy about branding their
products.
I'm not sure you understand clause
On 06/11/13 21:23, Engel Nyst wrote:
Oh, the alternate sample looks much cleaner to me. Sub-sections and
simple lists make it readable and it's helpfully organized.
I agree.
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
I want to have another go at gaining consensus on making tweaks to the
OSI's presentation of the 3-clause BSD licence
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause to reduce license
proliferation in the long term.
Legal advice tells me that two otherwise-identical BSD 3-clause licenses
must be
On 07/11/13 16:39, Engel Nyst wrote:
In the original BSD license, the occurrence of copyright holder in the
3rd clause read ORGANIZATION, placeholder for University of
California.
Actually, I believe this text should simply be:
In the original BSD license, the occurrence of copyright holder
On 15/08/13 03:44, ldr ldr wrote:
What are your thoughts on the existence and wording of an endorsement
clause?
Here is what I am thinking, if I choose to amend the BSD license:
Are you attempting to keep your licence open source/free?
If so, your clause 3 fails that test.
Gerv
On 06/03/13 15:59, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I fixed the From: address and deleted both of your accounts, Gerv. Can
you try to sign up again?
Thanks. Signed up; job done :-) (Although I wasn't the only contributor.)
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing
On 01/02/13 07:28, Ben Reser wrote:
No, the license doesn't matter. If you redistribute a modified file,
regardless of how you chose to license your modifications you need to
specify that you modified the file.
Right. And, as you note, this doesn't apply to Apache as they actually
aren't
On 30/01/13 06:25, Prashant Shah wrote:
Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works
rather than using the following sentence.
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files
What do you mean by handle?
If you are
On 31/01/13 10:20, David Woolley wrote:
The purpose of such clauses is not to track the provenance, but to
maintain the purity of the official version, so that forks cannot be
passed off as approved versions.
This sort of protection is the domain of trademark law, not copyright
law.
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open source developers only
On 31/01/13 10:42, Prashant Shah wrote:
Main objective is to keep track of the copyright owners / authors of
modifications that are made in a work that is _redistributed_ in
source form. So those who receive this new redistributed work know
what and who made the modifications.
Why do they
On 31/01/13 12:48, David Woolley wrote:
Particularly with the GPL, many people don't really understand what they
are doing when they use it. They may not even have the right to grant
the licence. One case may be that is is actually work for hire. Another
real case is that someone used source
On 03/01/13 14:19, Engel Nyst wrote:
A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public
License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text.
The canonical URL for any link anyone is creating is:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/
Gerv
On 10/12/12 17:23, Luis Villa wrote:
How to define useful objectively? Size is the obvious,
plausibly-obtainable proxy here for useful- projects over X LOC or
something like that. I suppose if you had a custom crawler that had
knowledge of git/svn/cvs/etc., you could do projects over 5
On 27/11/12 19:28, D M German wrote:
Why don't you try the tool we developed. It is a bit hacky, but it will
help you do what you are doing automatically.
http://github.com/dmgerman/ninka
Hi dmg,
I did come across ninka in my research, and tried it out, but I couldn't
really get it to do
Hi Larry,
On 27/11/12 04:57, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Consider the hapless corporate attorney who is forced to review hundreds of
proprietary software licenses when authorizing the distribution or
sale/purchase of his company's software products. Each of those proprietary
licenses may contain
On 26/11/12 23:44, Luis Villa wrote:
I wonder if there is an easy way to visualize the various changes you
have in your data set, to see where people agreed/disagreed/edited,
outside the obvious changes. Daniel German, cc'd, may have already
tackled this, or have other ideas along these lines.
On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision.
My assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all
significant references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new
version. Similarly, the original list included
43 matches
Mail list logo
