Pamela Chestek wrote at 09:54 (EDT) on Monday:
> And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary.
A major issue, I think, is that most people are really bad at writing
good summaries of licenses.
FWIW, a group of user interface researchers who have worked with Free
Software
Pamela Chestek wrote at 12:18 (EDT) on Sunday:
> Why cannot an advocate for each license write a short blurb with the
> benefits and burdens of their own license? I don't think there's
> anything wrong with all the choices being positively-biased.
This can be tested now: try it and see if chooseal
The GPLv3 is a rewritten GPLv2 which is less US specific, and addresses
additional copyleft weaknesses.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
> Hello license-discuss,
>
>
> On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
>> Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurat
Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief
that
> license proliferation is bad.
Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when
phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead,
say that the prol
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the
> event that its primary intent runs afoul of local law (as is a serious
> problem with such efforts), while Unlicense is a badly drafted crayon
> licence, apparently thrown t
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:01:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> license oompatibility,
License compatibility, that is. :)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any.
> Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain
> itself ?
Not necessarily; many CC0 users are focused on data rather than
anything pat
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 06:29:26PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote at 08:20 (EDT):
> > Not with an exception in the GPLv2 exception sense, and not without the
> > result being (A)GPLv3-incompatible, since under TGPPL each downstream
> > distributor appears to be required to
Hi!
> "Clark" == Clark C Evans writes:
>> Here is an example Business Source license...
Clark> Your proposal is an evaluation/crippled non-free license till a
Clark> particular
Clark> date, where upon it is automatically "gifted" under the GPL-3-or-later.
Clark> If this is the case, I wo
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts
> the patches.
I am very disinclined to go to the effort of integrating my ideas
(the actual "code", which is plain HTML, is not relevant) into Github's
code, absent some indication that they would be
Prashant Shah wrote:
> CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there
are any. Is
> this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public
domain itself?
The rationale, as I understand, is that a group in a University or
other large
organization would like to make the
Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com):
> CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are
> any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in
> public domain itself ?
In general, the focus of Creative Commons licences has been on
maximising the poss
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be "Free Software" [1],
> but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps
> because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of
> copyright?
I might point out, too, in
Clark C. Evans scripsit:
> The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be "Free Software"
> [1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed.
> Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless
> of copyright?
Indeed, there are many Free Software licenses wit
14 matches
Mail list logo
