Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that > impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. With great respect: It's not that. The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Rick Moen wrote: The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own > licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's > copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. > Indeed; I should

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Yes, Simon and Rick, I'm sorry I misunderstood Simon's use of the term "moderated." As a moderator of another opensource.org list, I can assure you I wasn't being disrespectful of moderators. That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that impose tricky processing

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org): > I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others > avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated. I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts. (My

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does > most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small > interactive main program which provides the command line. This main > program is provided in two versions. One

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was > addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > > > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? >

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the word

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Johnny Solbu wrote: > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that > the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. I did a "reply-all" in this thread on purpose, because I had reason to believe that at least some of the people CC'd and

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is > that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when > responding. FWIW, if more MUAs (mail user agents) were updated to become compliant with RFC 2369 section 3.4 (as

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote: > I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an > anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid > cross-posting to avoid this. I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my

[License-discuss] Moderator Advice

I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid cross-posting to avoid this. Thanks, Simon ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to license-discuss. In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > GPL dual licensing? The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

John Cowan wrote: > (Nowadays this wouldn't be necessary, as there are drop-in replacements for > readline, but the principle is still the same.) All copyrighted software can have "drop-in replacements" if someone wants to build them. Only patents may prevent that, but that's not the topic

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Brent Turner wrote: I assume this is not relevant as I am only interested in public elections - > which is where the corps I mentioned dwell-- and there would be no reason > for government to be hostile to GPL .so under that reasoning

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner wrote: John. Can you explain why a group such as Oset or FFE would not want to > simply use GPL ? I don't know those organizations. But if you issue software under the GPL, you reduce your market share by people who want

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to > the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully > compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

I have seen github repositories with MIT or GPL dual licensing (essentially same as what you say). The explanation was that they wanted to use MIT (as is common in Node/JavaScript circles) but also wanted to be GPL compatible, so had added that as an explicit option. (The particular project then