Re: Design Science License

[Michael Stutz]

Terry Hancock wrote:

 Is anyone familiar with this license and/or OSI's relationship to or
 opinion of it?

The DSL was submitted for OSI approval last January; there has yet to
be a reply.

Like others had mentioned on this list around that time, it seems that
OSI might not be actively approving licenses anymore -- so lack of OSI
approval should not necessarily be a negative influence in deciding
which license is best for your needs.

Re: Dominion Games needs help

[Michael Stutz]

What about licenses that apply to software, as well as other kinds
of information -- do such licenses qualify for OSI approval (and is
their discussion/review welcome on the list)?


Russell Nelson wrote:

 Because it's not software.  We (OSI) have intentionally decided to
 limit our certification to software.  So while people on the
 license-discuss list might want to help Dominion Games, the
 license-discuss mailing list isn't the right place to do it.
 
 license-discuss is *solely* for discussion of licenses proposed for
 OSI approval.  Any other discussion wastes subscriber's time.

Re: License Approval Process

[Michael Stutz]

Richard Brice wrote:

 You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
 licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
 think it is too far off the mark).

Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.

Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are
toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't they
release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they
chose), and also license the program under some other terms as needed?

[Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license
compatibility?]


 We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the
 disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific enough
 (at least that is what the lawyer told me).

Did the lawyer mean that it was not specific enough about your
particular organization or software, or that it was not specific
enough about exactly what is being disclaimed? If the latter, I'd like
to hear what the lawyer had to say!