On 2004.02.17 17:43 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
[snip]
So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the
(ideally
edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to
approving
licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the
proliferation of
subs
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
> While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
> restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
> not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
> modifications, but they do it at redistribution tim
> This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we
> should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word
> "utilize". Don't use utilize! Utilize "use" instead. Means the same
> thing and avoids a phony formality.
>
> Title: Fair License
> Submission:
> Orig
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 04:04 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL com
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
--
We've sat on this license submission for far too long. It's a clever
and innovative l
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
> as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
> to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL compatible?
>From the Apache License, Version 2.0:
| If You i
Rodent of Unusual Size writes:
> i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
> foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
> submit it for osi approval. it's online at
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>
> and i'm attaching the text version
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> > > If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
> > > works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
> > > citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
> > > citizens do not, then does NAS
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No
> license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on
> lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of
> creativity in the "derivative work" is suf
Lets continue down this line of thinking... (just trying to understand
the logic people have presented...)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Russell McOrmond scripsit:
>
> > If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
> > works that is in the public do
I use Creative Commons public domain dedication[1] for some of the
software I author. I am concerned that some people believe that it is
impossible to permanently and/or reliably place software in public
domain in some countries. It appears that while Creative Commons
public domain dedication make
> > So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
> domain work
> > and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For
> > example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into
> Apache httpd?
> > I must misunderstand what public domain means, then.
>
> Oh yes,
> > You can do anything you want to with a public domain work
> except try
> > to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of
> > the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no.
>
> So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
> domain work and release tha
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
> works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
> citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
> citizens do not, then does NASA?
Why, because
I do not have an answer to the specific question, but I suspect the answer
may reside in a treaty or an international agreement that is not a treaty.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), for instance, allows works in the
public domain in the U.S. to be scooped out of the public domain
retroacti
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
> I do wonder about
> 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
> Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the
> Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without
> any additional te
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I don't think it is legal in the USA to apply your own license to
> a public domain work. How can you license something to which you
> do not have a copyright?
This is just some of the odd things we end up if we play the word game
we were being l
Technically, you could slap a license on the work (and, thereby,
assert copyright), but no one may care about your licensed version
since the work remains in the public domain. As a practical matter, you
could "add value" to the public domain work and then license it. Or, you
could create a derivat
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> It appears that with US government created works that every US
> citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work,
Not so. See my other posting.
> Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to
> enter the public domain, and term expiry can be differen
Russell Nelson wrote:
> If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
> committee will have to work without your input. As we're only human,
> we might make a mistake, and approve an Apache license which didn't
> comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and
> release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I
> can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must
> misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> > > So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
> > > and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
> > > relicense PD works?
> >
> > You can d
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
>
> > If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
>
> > comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
> > take a gander at this?
>
> This license w
Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
> > > impunity, but not so Australians.
[This was in response to my quoting from the Berne Convention to
show that co
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
>
> > So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
> > and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
> > relicense PD works?
>
> You can do anything you want to with a public
I believe that the OSI is not USA only, so I hope this question does
receive some discussion.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
> > impunity, but not so Australians.
>
> Inter
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
> and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
> relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert
a valid copyright on it
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks; that looks definitive. So a U.S. government work is born into the
> public domain in the U.S., but is in copyright for 50 years after its
> publication date in Australia. Amazing.
>
> So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the N
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
> If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
> comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
> take a gander at this?
This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen
quite
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:27:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
> impunity, but not so Australians.
Depends. If there are patent rights then no. NOSA covers more than
just copyrights. I don't believe there's a restr
30 matches
Mail list logo
