On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 07:04 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it
> > explicitly withheld patent rights [2].
>
> Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on
> license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they
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
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013, at 02:25 PM, Eben Moglen wrote:
> You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
Dr. Moglen,
I'd like to highlight Cowan's advice since I've found it very helpful
(and completely un-obvious) in my own life:
"Civil apologies require confession, contrition, and
pr
> Therefore should say on all interface screens
> "Foo, a project by Google" or, if a fork: "Bar, a
> fork of the Google project Foo" with a link back
> to its github repo.
This requirement is just too asymmetric. What about
credit to the database glue you use? What about the
language? W
(moving my comment back to license-discuss)
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Frankly, what I want is the family of CC licenses for software. Then
> devs without some philosophical axe to grind will have a wide range of
> very permissive to moderately restricted software
> I am having trouble finding a benefit that would come from fixing it,
> that we don't already have from short-and-sweet licenses like BSD.
So, what makes unlicense and these public domain statements alluring
is that they serve as vehicles for their authors make a statement about
public policy.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 03:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Defective efforts like 'Unlicense' are what happens when naive coders
> > attempt to create permissive licences, with results about as sad and
> > unfortunate as would be the case
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 03:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
| Given CC0 expresses a willingness to license, surely an estoppel
| is created regardless of whether the abandonment is effective?
I'm not a legal professional, but I think it's the exact opposite,
in *no* case is a patent license granted: s
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> A key thing which I've seen abused is an elimination of the intended
> limited scope of the "Appropriate Legal Notices" requirement. While in
> theory a GPLv3 licensee may be subject to this requirement under some
> circumstances, the way o
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 05:16 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote:
> > I'm generally doubtful about new licences without a really
> > compelling reason, and the whole sordid badgeware episode
> > from 2006-7 tends to make me particularly skeptical of novel
> > licences talking about 'reasona
Karl & Rick,
I'm proposing that we implement a open source catalog and credit system
so that it is convenient for applications to display a graphical screen
(or textual menu) listing all of a works component parts, information
about them, copyright statements, license information, perhaps
contribu
As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in
trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).
However, I've expanded the scope of this beyond simply
crafting a license that requires attrib
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 01:55 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate
> copyright notices from software or accompanying documentation?
As you note, the GPLv3 7b provides the right to require
the preservation of legal notices and author attributions
i
As an update to this thread, I don't see a way to create an
generic and effective attribution clause for MIT/BSD that is
compatible with the GPLv3, so for the moment, I'm focusing
on an incompatible method. If anyone is interested in
following up with creating a compatible method, I'd be very
i
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 10:54 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Since I'm not a legal professional, I'd prefer someone who is
> > associated with the Open Source Initiative to provide some
> > guidance if they might feel inclined.
>
> I realize that. However, I think you have done about 80% of the wo
Sorry, the repository is https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn#readme
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
So that we can track changes in the license draft and
corresponding interpretation, please visit the GitHub
project... https://github.com/hattip/fmn
Thank you kindly,
Clark
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://project
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 05:19 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> What I would do if I were you is to construct such a license
> using the MIT license and the attribution clause you want,
> carefully tracking the language in the GPLv3. Then follow
> the process "For Approval" at http://www.opensource.org/
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012, at 03:23 PM, Johannes Buchner wrote:
> It talks about preserving the preservation of legal notices or
> author attributions, not rules of any ad formats for the software.
That's correct.
> *The only thing you demand is that they distribute the source, and
> that the source m
Good Morning!
Our company is releasing a medical informatics platform, RexDB,
under the GPLv3 license later this year (after the code has a
developer documentation). We will be using 7b clause
of the GPLv3 license for a reasonable author attribution.
Even so, parts of our system will be released
John,
Thank you for your reply.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 11:18 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Does the GPL prevent the distribution of M if the
> > work it relies upon, P, isn't compatibly licensed?
>
> Web browsers "rely on" web servers to provide most of their function
> (take it from someone wh
First, thank everyone for their responses. I especially
enjoy the reading material that Rick Moen has referenced.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> If it's not a derivative work then it's not a derivative
> work and you should have no heartache. If it is a
> derivative
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 01:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
>
> > What confuses me and what I'm asking here is why licensing
> > professionals focus on two items that I consider irrelevant:
> > (a) what is the type of linking
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> The real question is not what the GPLv3 does or
> does not allow, it is what copyright does or does
> not allow. If a work is derived under copyright
> law from a GPLed piece of work, then it must be GPLed.
> If a work is *not* derived und
Rick,
My question is rather straight-forward. Does the GPLv3
permit the distribution of derived works that require
an independent and non-free work for its operation [1].
I was under the impression that the Corresponding Source
("all the source code needed to... run the object code")
and 5c ("the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 01:34 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> You know, Clark: Speaking for myself, I have no interest
> in advising querents about how closely they can lawfully
> skirt the requirements of copyleft licences, or how they
> can creatively circumvent those requirements entirely, in
> ord
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 02:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Linking GPL software to proprietary software is legal as
> long as one doesn't create a derivative work.
Thank you for the helpful response. The hard part then is
knowing when a derivative work would be formed, or, perhaps
more difficult
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 04:28 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0
>
> I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either.
This license seems to have two interesting conditions.
First, it requires a cli
I found a tangible example of what I'm referring to, complete with
wonderful visuals. Chris Kleisath at Sybase describes how they
circumvent the GPL license by using intermediate APIs to link
proprietary functionality with GPL licensed works. Is Chris correct?
For GPLv2? For GPLv3?
http://iabl
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 03:01 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
| > Let's suppose that I've working on a Ledger++ program
| > which is a proprietary version of your Ledger SMB that
| > adds awesome multi-state Payroll and Asset Depreciation
| > features. Only rather than including these features
| > in yo
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 03:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> In general, good will from the projects at issue is a factor that
> should not be underestimated and being a good citizen means ideally
> making sure they are ok with it.
Absolutely. If people consider you to be behaving fairly,
they ar
I have a broad question about various interpretations
of the GPL with regard to WebAPIs. Let me start with
an example scenario.
1. Suppose that Super Visual is a clever GPL
licensed data visualization program (released by
Vendor A).
2. Now suppose that there is a closed-source, but
free to redis
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 10:51 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The author should back up and state a list of goals,
> rather than present the argument as pseudo-legal drafting.
Bruce,
My primary objective is that software ported to provide
compatibility with proprietary platforms be done in such
a ma
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 04:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> | This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to
> | make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively
> | upon non-free components.
> I believe these could be understood to conflict with:
> - ``The freed
I'd love your high-level thoughts on a "Free Island"
license or anything that might be similar in nature.
...
FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011)
This software is licensed for any purpose excepting
the right to make publicly available derived works
which depend exclusively upon no
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Manfred Schmid writes:
> > I hereby request an official Board statement: Does OSI approval of
> > licenses require the software to be free in the sense of "free beer"?
>
> [ I prefer to use the terms "gratis" and "libre". In English, "free"
> means
36 matches
Mail list logo
