-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/01/15 14:14, Engel Nyst wrote:
> CLA stands for contributor *license* agreement. It's a non-exclusive
> license, plus some stuff. A non-exclusive licensee doesn't have standing
> for license enforcement. One needs to be copyright holder or exc
David Woolley scripsit:
> It might be needed because it has become important to integrate the
> work with work under and otherwise incompatible open source licence.
> In the past, I think it has been necessary to remove contributions
> from a minor contributor, to achieve this, because they were u
On 01/20/2015 03:24 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has
> marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar. But no prior written
> permission from Foo was obtained for this. If Foo looks at the
> project, notices a bug, and submits a patch under the s
On 20/01/15 19:48, Engel Nyst wrote:
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an OSI
approved license(s) doesn't seem to give the permissions necessary,
within the bounds of the license, for anyone to combine one's project
from different sources and distribute it.
One of th
Ben Tilly scripsit:
> A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has
> marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar.
I don't know that that counts as "promoting or endorsing" (that would
be using the expat XML parser and claiming that James Clark approves
of your coftware), but I
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, wrote:
> Allison Randal scripsit:
>
>> If you want specific examples, I'd say GPL and Apache both work fine
>> with inbound=outbound. GPL takes a position close to compelling
>> inbound=outbound. Apache 2.0 was specifically designed with
>> inbound=outbound in mi
On 01/20/2015 12:09 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
>
> What does DCO mean in this context?
Developer Certificate of Origin, as used by the Linux Kernel. It's
essentially a way of being more explicit about an inbound=outbound
contribution policy, by having each developer "sign off" that they
acknowledg
Allison Randal scripsit:
> If you want specific examples, I'd say GPL and Apache both work fine
> with inbound=outbound. GPL takes a position close to compelling
> inbound=outbound. Apache 2.0 was specifically designed with
> inbound=outbound in mind, you can see fingerprints of it all over the
>
On 01/20/2015 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> I wrote up an example of an open source license that has different
> legal effects when used inbound and outbound, but I've deleted it to
> avoid taking this thread down a rabbit hole.
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an
On 01/20/2015 10:46 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
>
> That doesn't make any sense. How is the open source license not good?
> How doesn't it give permissions set out in OSD? And WHY was it approved
> if it doesn't comply?
You're missing the point. The open source license is good, does give the
permission
On 01/18/2015 02:57 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
> As Allison noted, most OSI approved licenses can be used for inbound
> use, but we do not take a position on that issue in approving
> licenses. [..] Thus, the approval of a license by OSI as meeting the
> criteria of the OSD does not reflect a revie
On 01/18/2015 11:14 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
> The relevant aspect here, seems to me, is that OSI's criteria for open
> source licenses *include* whether the *license used inbound* is giving
> rights to anyone receiving the software, as set out in the OSD.
>
> Anyone includes the "project", a legal e
On 01/19/2015 08:04 PM, jonathon wrote:
> Some organizations use the CLA so that when license violations are
> found, if the violator refuses to correct the problem, pursuing
> legal remedies is much easier.
CLA stands for contributor *license* agreement. It's a non-exclusive
license, plus some st
13 matches
Mail list logo
