Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Yes, Simon and Rick, I'm sorry I misunderstood Simon's use of the term "moderated." As a moderator of another opensource.org list, I can assure you I wasn't being disrespectful of moderators. That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that impose tricky processing e

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Johnny Solbu wrote: > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that > the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. I did a "reply-all" in this thread on purpose, because I had reason to believe that at least some of the people CC'd and interes

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

cil.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: Brent Turner Cc: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert ; Joe Kiniry Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner mailto:turnerbre...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

in...@freeandfair.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:13 PM To: John Cowan Cc: Lawrence Rosen ; Brent Turner ; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to li

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

way. Always take the more generous offer of software! I'm also copying some friends at OSI, but I'm not copying your email. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 From: Joe Ki

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Richard Fontana wrote: > Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any > use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD > license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly > excludes patent licenses) and the ones I

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Richard Fontana wrote: > ... which would be more consistent with the ARL lawyers' apparent belief that > some horrible disaster will occur if they put US published code under a > copyright license. :) Richard, what horrible disaster will come if OSI approves CC0 as an open source license?

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

the domain I don't think I can answer... So is that legal advice from you via the internet? To just go for it? Awesome! Hey look...flying livestock! :) Regards, Nigel From: Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Date: Wednesday, Mar 08, 2017, 3:08 PM To: licen

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking > moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source > copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 > because the libraries and functions used to impl

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:27 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; License Discuss Subject: Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD [] IANALTINLA and all that. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Software patents are terrible in part because they pertain to the source code itself, thus affecting the distribution terms on that code. Patents don't pertain to source code or to code distribution, at least not in legal terms of direct patent infringement.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Richard Fontana suggested: > So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when > used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", > for example? Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies might be able to live w

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage the use of, by the government or anyone else... Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: > Something is certainly better than nothin

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

e should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. YMMV of course. Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: > it se

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Jim Wright wrote: > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event > - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever > extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as > to patents, I don’t want to have to look a

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated as any DOD approved open source license. Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S. government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. Even Goog

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Richard Fontana wrote: > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the > use of CC0. Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the elegance of its approach

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Would CC0 plus Apache licenses resolve the patent problem? /Larry -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:37 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss]

[License-discuss] The Federal Register Process

rised if I wasn't allowed to tell people about something in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards. I'll bring it up > in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting. That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals based on leg

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

your suggestion, Stephen, I won't bother with a FOIA request "to the government lawyers." :-) /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

e them to speak up publicly about their public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license with public domain components in our software. That's not the way the open source community works out such issues. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 Ki

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

uggesting that "severability" is a potential problem with Apache software? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@o

Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: . . . the truly serious issue is severability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). The concern is that if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable by

[License-discuss] More information about NOTICE files

ork to the bottom. Delete nothing. So what if there is no "short version" of the NOTICE file? Hardly anybody but lawyers read it anyway. And it remains a convenient document to stroke the egos of every important contributor to the work at no additional cost to the project or

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Chuck Swiger wrote: > This is a pretty common mistake that developers tend to make when reviewing > licenses. The law doesn't come in a fully denormalized grammar suitable for > context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers. The law DOES come in a "fully denormalized gramm

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

m: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:48 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Ro

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge. Instead they said simply: "Here is this copyrighted work. Us

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

John Cowan wrote: > what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses > they have issued? Apprarently so. Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge. In

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Henrik Ingo wrote: MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license. I also would like to see a reference to that written statement. But I believe it to be true only if it means: . . . does *not*

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Ben Tilly wrote: > Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > shall not require a royalty or other fee for su

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Nigel Tzeng wrote: So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat? [] But you can redistribute RHEL if you don't modify it. If you modify it, apply a different trademark to distinguish it in the marketplace. No tradema

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for software: 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. I assumed "

[License-discuss] The License Talking-About List

Cem Karan wrote: > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been ar

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

; in public domain works. Almost any FOSS contract will work to protect the licensor. /Larry -Original Message- From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:59 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would > think that would be a different scenario. If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). I license my

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

omain software. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. From:

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

t with your counsel. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 -Original Message- From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:52 AM

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can directly enforce t

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce. Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even for the public domain

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

McCoy Smith wrote: > I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that > there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that > waiver is ineffective? Liability for commercial products (e.g., electronic devices and cars) cannot be entirely waiv

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

gt; < > Caution- > > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright > < > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > Caution-Caution-https://www.governmen

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

/Larry -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul Weber [mailto:singpol...@singpolyma.net] Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 11:59 AM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services > AGPL doesn't a

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

Miles Fidelman wrote: I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for for-profit hosting. Stephen Paul Weber responded: Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that AG

Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Cem Karan wrote: > 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 not > have copyright attached, so we have to rely on contract law as a protection > mechanism within the USA. I don't unde

Re: [License-discuss] Source-attribution licenses and Javascript compatibility

Andi McClure wrote: > The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers to > "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code". > Without a definition, how do I (or someone who uses my project) know whether > cases #2 and #3 are "source distribution

Re: [License-discuss] Words that don't mean derivative work

ld by the Licensor [omitting additional clause re synching] Diane Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wro

[License-discuss] Words that don't mean derivative work

Simon Phipps the other day used the word "integration" to mean "derivative work." Recently on this and other open source email lists we've seen "combinations," "inclusion," "kernel space," "shim," "interface" and "API", "header file", and "linking". None of those is ipso facto a derivative work

[License-discuss] Questions about translations

Read GPLv2 into Google Translate or into a phone translation app and translate the license into Greek. Is that Greek translation an authorized derivative work? Is that translation enforceable? Is it all fair use? /Larry ___ License-discuss ma

Re: [License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0

her to include my own explanation of my licenses. /Larry From: Simon Phipps [mailto:webm...@opensource.org] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:39 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0 That page is linked from http://opensourc

[License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0

, 2016 12:32 AM To: License submissions for OSI review Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay > FOSS license. But AFL 3.0 did that very

Re: [License-discuss] Orphan Works: Summary of proposed 17 USC 514

Henrik Ingo wrote: > But you're right that they also stand to gain from co-opting orphaned works > and then including them into new, copyrighted productions. The term "co-opting" is out of place. Here is the constitutional view: As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2012, facilitating the di

[License-discuss] PLI Open Source and Free Software 2015 on 12/16

tek (Chestek Legal) and Stephen LaPorte (Wikimedia): These trademark specialists will describe new efforts in the open source community to create and protect trademarks for free software. * Heather Meeker (O'Melveny & Myers), Cliff Allen (Microsoft), Duane Valz (Google), Jim Wright

[License-discuss] Orphan Works: Summary of proposed 17 USC 514

For those who don't want to read the entire report, below is a summary of draft U.S. copyright legislation, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 514, "Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works." The orphan works problem is referred to as "perhaps the single greatest impediment to creating new works.

[License-discuss] Compatibility of CC-BY-SA-4

Creative Commons has added GPL-3 to the list of licenses compatible with CC-BY-SA-4. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/46186 Great! Maybe now that others have spoken, the Apache Board will reconsider its prior objections to CC-BY-SA-4. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John, an open source license is not a nudum pactum. Consideration abounds in FOSS. Paraphrasing Wikipedia (the easy source for all law references): The Jacobsen v. Katzer case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on b

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John Cowan wrote about the word "forever" [1]: > In my non-lawyer opinion, the irrevocability clause of GPL3 hasn't got a leg to stand on. If I put up a sign on my land saying PUBLIC ACCESS PERMITTED and then take it down before prescription kicks in, the fact that the sign also said THIS SIGN WI

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John Cowan replied in response to Pam Chestek's comment: > Consider a work available under GPL+proprietary terms, where you get to do > non-GPL things if you have paid. Then it would not be enough to show that > the work was available under a proprietary license to allow you to download > it an

Re: [License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

Nigel Tzeng wrote: And everyone makes mistakes ISO 9001 or not. The key is to minimize avoidable errors through policy/procedures, training and selective use of 3rd party libraries and licenses. Apache products are generally considered safe(r) and require less oversight in terms of copyrig

Re: [License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

che's "categories." For both binaries and source code. Caveat emptor. Caveat derivator. /Larry P.S. Nigel is correct. I meant EPL not ECL. I write too fast From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:36 PM To: Lawrence Ros

Re: [License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

2015 Sally Contributor." Because this is a derivative work of an MPLv2 program, the resulting Apache SQRT module is licensed under MPLv2. Every program that invokes this Apache SQRT module retains its own license, FOSS or proprietary. /Larry From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@ro

Re: [License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

"patches" (if by that you mean small changes to fix bugs) is not a copyright problem. A bigger change would require that someone intelligent on the PMC evaluate it as a contribution and make a comment about it in the NOTICE file. /Larry Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal ad

[License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

license (except perhaps under the GPL "static linking" doctrine) satisfies this second guiding principle. See OSD. /Larry P.S. I don't know if this message will survive legal-discuss@ list moderation, so I intend to send it onto other lists.

[License-discuss] Category "B" licenses at Apache

king" doctrine) satisfies this second guiding principle. See OSD. /Larry P.S. I don't know if this message will survive legal-discuss@ list moderation, so I intend to send it onto other lists. All quotations are from *public* ASF lists. Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice

Re: [License-discuss] Is what's made with Open Source, Open Source?

Gareth, it all depends on what is a "work based on the Program." See GPLv2 §0, part of which is copied below. Opinions on that definition differ. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the P

[License-discuss] The effects (?) of trade agreements

negotiated, so all it suggests is that we keep our eyes open. /Larry From: Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbre...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 9:37 AM To: Lawrence Rosen; Brian Fox; David Webber; Patrick Masson Subject: Thoughts ? <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

the only one aggregating ALv2 software with other FOSS software. The above is a relevant open source question to all of our customers. Thanks for your thoughts. /Larry From: Simon Phipps [mailto:webm...@opensource.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:51 AM To: Lawrence Rosen; lice

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

legal doctrine of "willful blindness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness> ." /Larry Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 28,

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Nigel, your answer echoes many others: > If I have to start checking every Apache package for GPL code I'll have to > strongly recommend that we approach all Apache packages with caution. If we amended the proposal to leave out the GPL licenses, would that calm your concerns? I'd real

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

pace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b 0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf. Should OSI say more than "not approved"? /Larry -Original Message- From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org

[License-discuss] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting Officials (CAVO). Thanks OSI! There was a question on that email list recently about why CAVO prefers GPLv3 for voting software. I had recommended GPLv3 to CAVO several months earlier. Below was my response. The local gove

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

t; > Once again this ignores the community motivations for the policy. The OSI is > not qualified to make judgments on ASF cultural mission. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > From: Lawrence Rosen > Sent: ‎5/‎25/‎2015 11:54 AM > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Cc: 'Licens

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:24 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy I don't see how you are going to do that unless the OSI are going to maintain complex lists. If this is "the OSI are laun

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

nt: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:12 AM To: ASF Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy Your original proposal was (quoting the heart of it; for any readers not familiar refer back to the whole email): Proposal: "Apache projects may accept

Re: [License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

iginal Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 9:39 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: 'Legal Discuss' Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > I read

[License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

[cross-posted to legal-discuss@apache and license-discuss@opensource] [The below is my response to someone else's email on another list. It is rather legal/technical, but some of you may now understand why I'm not as afraid of patents as I used to be. I'd like to calm some of you down also and

[License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

Elsewhere on internal Apache member email lists we've been discussing a patent that may or may not apply to Apache software. I already quoted publicly the strongly-held opinion of one Apache member that "this patent is just plain BS, IMHO." He may be right. My concern is that Apache members are

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

7;m expressly NOT speaking of derivative works.! I used the word "aggregation" on purpose. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:07 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; License Discuss Cc: Legal Discuss; European Legal Network Sub

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

o ride my horse into the sunset if other attorneys tell me I'm inventing copyright law. I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something supportive. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent:

[License-discuss] Note from another list by OSI's Patrick Masson

FYI. /Larry By Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org . Here is some general information in our FAQ: http://opensource.org/faq#approved-licenses-only Interestingly, as this appears to be increasing (i.e. governments/agencies looking to adopt "open

Re: [License-discuss] 3rd Party License policy, the board, and the term "FREE"

quot;Licensed CC-BY 4.0" so copy or quote it anywhere. Thanks. /Larry Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

Maybe we can summarize so far: ULTRA-STRONG(AGPL) STRONG (GPL) MORE THAN WEAK (LGPL) ALMOST WEAK (EPL) WEAK(MPL) VERY WEAK (APACHE) ULTRA-WEAK (CC0) This rather simple scale is not reflected in copyright law or any r

[License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz referred me to this thought-provoking link: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/meaning-%E2%80%9Ccopyleft%E2 %80%9D-eupl Can anyone here precisely identify the language in the GPL licenses that makes it "strong" rather than "weak" copyleft? And can anyon

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

programmers that's probably not much of an issue recently in many jurisdictions. :-) As a self-employed lawyer, I'm glad that not every programmer has the need to become a lawyer also. /Larry Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bil

Re: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents

Jonathon, This double-negative in your email leaves me confused: "This isn't a case of where the developer is unaware of possible patents." In many situations, such as in Apache and W3C, a contributor has an obligation to the community to disclose what he or she knows. Secrets serve nobody.

[License-discuss] Open Source and Open Standards

Friends, I presented a few months ago at Santa Clara University about Open Source and Open Standards <http://htlj.org/symposium/speakers/lawrence-rosen/> . If you get a free hour sometime, play that presentation. Follow that link and enjoy a legal/software topic. I'm the short ch

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

as applied to copyrighted articles! Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." -Original Message- From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subjec

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[side issue below] John Cowan wrote: > In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract. I'm not sure that's true for "sublicensed" software. That's why I objected to the sublicensing provision in a recently-approved license. Most licenses nowadays fortunately are directly from the

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

this one always triumph yours. On 6 March 2015 at 17:09, Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Nigel and others, We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here is what EFF says we can do in the United States: https://www.eff.org/issu

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

Nigel and others, We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here is what EFF says we can do in the United States: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq Perhaps we can rely on their well-researched legal analysis for now. Someone complained t

Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD with additional clause forbidding key disclosure

> Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction > would not be OSD-compliant? Why are you trying to "open source" your additional clause forbidding key disclosure? It is hard for me to recognize such private and confidential commercial transactions as open source. Already s

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

John Cowan wrote: > Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code; Do you mean "grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of the license"? /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015

Re: [License-discuss] Wikipedia Content

Wikipedia Content Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf > of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative > Commons friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?" [snip] > Yes, it requ

Re: [License-discuss] Wikipedia Content

Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?" Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no." Yes, it requires recipr

[License-discuss] Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3

/newsletter1.html. Please direct any comments or questions or support to cavocont...@gmail.com <mailto:cavocont...@gmail.com> . /Larry ** "Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3" by Lawrence Rosen There are many ways to distribute software. Valuable soft

Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] OS license for seeds (!)

see if they are working on this. /Larry [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 LinkedIn: <http

[License-discuss] How licenses treat patents

ar? Probably the only grand solution to the "patent problem" is the one proposed by Richard Stallman and lots of others: Prohibit software patents entirely. But that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, so I hope OSI doesn't waste its time traveling down that particular l

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?

Philip Odence suggested: > Hey maybe "well-understood" is a good alternative to "standard." Note that the GPL is one of the "least-understood" licenses around, even by some of its supporters who make the most outrageous claims about linking. :-) /Larry From: Philip Odence [mailto:pode.

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?

Hi Philip, Thanks for the Black Duck "Top 20" list of open source licenses. Your list is the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too personally. But this list demonstrates that even the ways that we calculate popularity are flawed. For example: * Are GPLv2 and

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?

Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:10 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"? Lawrence Rosen scripsit: >

  1   2   >