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. :-)
From professional experience I see some non-GPL supporters top the
charts in outrageous claims about GPL and linking. A particularly
interes
gt;>
Subject: 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
From: Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:52 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
"why standard licenses"?
ined by FSF. Why is it on
your list at all?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:48 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ ent
Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:48 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
"why standard licenses"?
In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses
In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the
number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a
million) that utilize each respective license.
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses
The webpage only shows the
Apparently so. Because if you agree with the goals of the GPL, you
should probably be using GPL v3+ rather than GPL v2+.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Fontana
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
> Ben Tilly wrote:
>
>> Suggested solution, can we use the word "common" instead
Richard Fontana scripsit:
> You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from "common"?
Well, the most common license is probably GPLV2+, not GPLV2-only.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
All Norstrilians knew that humor was "pleasurable corrigible ma
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
Ben Tilly wrote:
> Suggested solution, can we use the word "common" instead of
> "standard"? And our definition of common should be something
> relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus
> licenses (like the GPL v2) whose authors are
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> John, once again you state the obvious to support an invalid argument:
>> By the same token, the GPL is a standard open-source license and the
>> Motosoto Open Source License is not, though both are equally OSI certified.
>
> Do you expect a
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:20 -0300
"Bruno F. Souza" wrote:
> Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other
> meanings of "standard", when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the
> term "standard" is really confusing...
I think so too now, in light of this thread at least.
Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other meanings
of "standard", when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the term "standard" is
really confusing...
Specially since the Wiki page does not seem to imply any of the things being
discussed in this thread...
The entry se
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:
>
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Miles and others,
Can you correlate what OSI does with what is described at
http://opensource.org/osr-intro?
Personally, I think it's up to OSI to make the case for what they do,
and the extent that they are or are not a standards body. As far as I
can tell, their "ope
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> > Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
> > source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about
> > (I believe that text used to be on the home page).
>
> Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is absolutely
> nothing
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:51 -0400
Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen
> wrote:
> > I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use
> > approved licenses
>
> Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word "standard" is used, some
> variant of "approv
yone.
What's worse, it doesn't help anyone choose an *appropriate* license for
software.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:40 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use approved
> licenses
Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word "standard" is used, some
variant of "approved" or "OSI-approved" is a reasonable replacement.
Thanks,
BC
--
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
> Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses
> for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about (I believe that
text used to be
> on the home page).
Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is absol
t standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
-------- Original message ----
From: Luis Villa
Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: License Discuss
Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why
standard licenses"?
Hi, all-
A
ᐧ
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
>
>> "Standard" is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
>> standards organization. Larry
Louis:
Consider flipping the FAQ subject to say: "Why shouldn't I cook-up your own
home-made license?" I think it's easier
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro...@rosenlaw.com
> wrote:
>
>> "Standard" is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
>> standards organization. Larry
>>
>>
>> Original message ----
>> From: Luis Villa
>> Date:0
How about "OSI Approved" license? That's what you do.
Larry
Sent from my tablet and thus brief
Simon Phipps wrote:
>___
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss@opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lic
essage
> From: Luis Villa
> Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why
> standard licenses"?
>
> Hi, all-
>
> A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website
"Standard" is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
Sent from my smartphone
Original message
From: Luis Villa
Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: License Discuss
Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question is here:
http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Projects/Why+st
26 matches
Mail list logo
