Re: [License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users
Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it > is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to > anyone who would like to look for it. > > We include a number of components in our application and I am looking for > guidance to how we handle the licenses for them. > You may be interested in the method we've established described at <https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels> and <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels-rationale.html>. (Note that the LibreJS software is undergoing a rewrite now, but the format is human readable and does not require LibreJS to be meaningful.) -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <https://my.fsf.org/join>. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent
"Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> writes: > --===0423943140736445875== > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; > micalg=SHA1; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540" > > --=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? > That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, > would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL? In my > opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore > should care more about such situations. > I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about, but in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend other licenses depending on the situation (see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html). We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just copyleft free software. Our licens...@fsf.org team answers questions that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with the community and in our compliance work. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://my.fsf.org/join>. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Compatibility of CC-BY-SA-4
"Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> writes: > Creative Commons has added GPL-3 to the list of licenses compatible with > CC-BY-SA-4. > > > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/46186 > (and FSF's blog post about it is at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3) -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://my.fsf.org/join>. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Pars pro toto: a fundamental(?) lack in (MIT licensed) (jquery) java-script packages?
Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de writes: Therefore, we want to ask: Are we right? Do we really have to add the MIT license to an MIT licensed package which does not contain this license? Or is there any way to distribute the library to our 3rd. parties in exact that form we received from jquery? We have a couple of ways of conveying license info for JavaScript that we hope people will adopt -- they are both machine and human readable -- at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html. The method described at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels.html is probably most suitable for cases like jquery. License notices are important for the people receiving the software -- so that users who get the software know they have certain freedoms. It may help to think about it in these terms as well as just satisfying copyright holder requirements/expectations. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions may be informative here. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL
Robin Winning robin.winn...@cyaninc.com writes: Hi All, I am a contracts manager at software company, and in addition to doing contracts, I now find myself reviewing the licenses associated with the open source packages my company has acquired. I have become quite familiar with the GPL/LGPL/AGPL suite of licenses, as well as the other, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? It can be, yes. Some packages whose copyrights are held by the FSF are distributed under other licenses. There is actually no intrinsic connection between the GPL and the FSF holding the copyright or vice versa. However, it is not valid for someone to just say Copyright Free Software Foundation on their code without actually having a conversation with us about it (although we appreciate the sentiment). :) We don't actually hold the copyright unless the author has signed an agreement with us transferring it. If you write to ass...@gnu.org with more information about the code, we can confirm whether we actually hold the copyright. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
