Thirded. The alphabetical list is the one I use most. I find the
category list mostly useless.
Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd
just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone
because you're going to have contention over what belongs i
Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:
> Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd
> just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone
> because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list of
> "popular, widely used or have strong communities
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. > If you really want
to present a neutral "Popular/Widely Used/Strong" list
> then use one developed from actual metrics of what is widely used. The
> OSRC one is the one I typically refer to. You'd want to remove the
> non-OSI approved licenses of
Count my vote as NO for the same reason that Nigel gave.
Count me also as frustrated that OSI continues to silence the arguments
against your license categorizations!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> If you want to update main "Open Source Licenses" landing page that isn't
> mostly blank with two links then I'd move some of the FAQ answers to the
> landing page. Discussion regarding what permissive and copyleft means
> would be helpfu
Incorrect. The only part I'm specifically against is the section:
"The following OSI-approved licenses are popular, widely used, or have
strong communities:
[Insert the current list of popular/widely used/strong community
licenses]"
The reason I am opposed to this specific part is becau
Heard loud and clear re usefulness of the alphabetical list; it will
not go away.
I'm surprised by that, so (in a different thread) I'd welcome more
detail on what people use it for.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Gwyn Murray wrote:
> Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of th
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Heard loud and clear re usefulness of the alphabetical list; it will
> not go away.
>
> I'm surprised by that, so (in a different thread) I'd welcome more
> detail on what people use it for.
User story:
Henrik needs to look up (or link to) th
Same. I used it this way today when I was curious if the Code Project
Open License was OSI approved. It's not but is on the osrc top 20 list - I
dunno if that is a bug or a feature...I assume there is some weird history
given that the OSI is "below the fold" on their resource page and grouped
with
Ah, OK- this makes sense. I tend to just hit Google first to answer
this question, but it is obviously a valid and sensible use case.
Thanks for clarifying for me.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Same. I used it this way today when I was curious if the Code Project
> Op
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Same. I used it this way today when I was curious if the Code Project
> Open License was OSI approved. It's not
I don't think it has ever been submitted. I have not analyzed from an
OSI perspective, but I've heard some people who have say
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:19:17PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Heard loud and clear re usefulness of the alphabetical list; it will
> > not go away.
> >
> > I'm surprised by that, so (in a different thread) I'd welcome more
> > detail on what
Luis Villa scripsit:
> What objective, factual criteria would you use to supplement or
> replace the current categories?
>
> Ideally, suggestions for criteria would include either:
>
> 1) a reliable third-party data source (like the blackduck survey Nigel
> pointed to)
Well, let's examine the c
13 matches
Mail list logo
