[Moving from license-review, where this no longer seems topical, to
license-discuss.]
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
On 3/7/12 8:41 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
(I think we're ALL agreed that patents which are not freely licensed
-- at least for open source
On 03/08/2012 12:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
the notion that anyone who thinks new licences ought to address patent
issues in some way is logically obliged to try to revoke BSD licence's
OSI Certified status (or formally deprecate the licence) is absurd,
and we could have done without those and
Rick Moen scripsit:
That is, I _believe_ Russ was reminding us all of a fact sometimes
forgotten, that suitable licensing is a necessary but not sufficient
requirement for open source, and always has been: E.g., if someone
releases a binary codebase and claim it's BSD, you might reasonably
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
[quoting me]
(3) Irrespective of CC0's merits as a fallback permissive licence,
the document's fundamental reason for existing is foolhardy: the
delusional belief that creative works can be safely magicked into the
public domain despite a
[Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs,
thank you.]
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
[paring the distribution list]
Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt.
Thank you, Alexander, for a clear rejoinder to my essay arguing that the
5 matches
Mail list logo
