Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org writes:
1) Have licenses out in the world that are OSD-compliant, and that
we informally agree are open source, but that we don't certify.
This will cause growing divergence between what is open source
and what the OSI has approved. That
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
I continue to think that our CC0 decision was wrong insofar as it can
be read as saying that the CC0 license is not an open-source (as opposed
to OSI Certified) license. There may be reasons not to certify it,
but not to deny that it is open source.
Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org writes:
This work's authors seem to explicitly say that they are dedicating it
to the public domain, not merely (or explicitly at all, as far as
I can see here) relying on the notion of statutory public domain for
US government works. I'd argue those are two
This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and there's
no clarity on whether calling it open source and citing the OSI's
definition of the term would be appropriate:
odie5...@gmail.com writes:
Hi. I see questions about CC0 and public domain dedication pop up all the
time on message boards. In the FAQ, it goes through why these licenses are
not currently OSI approved. I was wondering if you could amend the FAQ to put
forth the option that developers can dual
Luis Villa l...@lu.is writes:
It seems to me still too unformed an idea, and with too few people
committed to actually working on it, to make it a WG. But I may be
misreading the level of committed involvement.
Well, i think the idea is pretty well formed; it's just a matter of
actually doing it.
Joe Murray joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz writes:
I haven't played with this previously.
I think a good way to start would be to set up the following Drupal
modules and try putting up a few licenses with simple and complex
formatting needs:
https://drupal.org/project/markdown
Luis Villa l...@lu.is writes:
I'm actually somewhat skeptical that section numbering will survive
Markdown, but we should at least give it a try. (And that's a
non-trivial problem, since people refer to Sec X(y) fairly
frequently in outside documents, so changing how those are
rendered/presented
Joe Murray joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz writes:
What I really want help with is someone to a) proofread the text that
I change from html to text, and b) to provide feedback / direction on
matters like whether it would be okay to create separate nodes with
different names for version x and version
Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
(from 2008):
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000273.html
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html
[...]
For what it is worth, I'm not sure the OSI should voluntarily spend any
time or
claim are open source, but are actually not
or at least have not been evaluated by the OSI, right?
-K
On Oct 14, 2013 2:28 PM, Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/14/2013 09:32 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Obviously, I'd like to see TrueCrypt be truly open source. The ideal
solution
Just in case anyone else noticed this:
https://www.cra.com/commercial-solutions/probabilistic-modeling-services.asp
They want to be open source, and almost are, but they're using a custom
license based on 3-clause BSD with an extra clause -- clause (4) -- that
IMHO is problematic. I've
Josh Berkus j...@postgresql.org writes:
The current prelude on The PostgreSQL License says:
This is a template license. The body of the license starts at the end
of this paragraph. To use it, say that it is The PostgreSQL License, and
then substitute the copyright year and name of the copyright
zooko zo...@zooko.com writes:
I suspect the Business Source Licence is inspired by my Transitive Grace Period
Public Licence:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/tgppl.pdf
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst
But, the Transitive Grace Period Public Licence is an Open
Some of you may have seen this already -- from Ben Balter (of GitHub):
http://choosealicense.com/
We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be
great to get people's opinions first.
Ben's announcement is below:
From: Ben Balter ben.bal...@github.com
Subject:
Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com writes:
I am submitting final draft for a software license called Akshar
License for review on this list.
https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt
https://raw.github.com/octabrain/akshar/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt
Mainly it differs from
Robin Winning robin.winn...@cyaninc.com writes:
I am a contracts manager at software company, and in addition to doing
contracts, I now find myself reviewing the licenses associated with
the open source packages my company has acquired. I have become quite
familiar with the GPL/LGPL/AGPL suite of
Bruce Perens br...@perens.com writes:
Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
with it.
Er, yes. (Was there something I said that contradicted that?)
-K
On 4/17/2013 10:04 AM, Karl Fogel wrote
Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl writes:
I much prefer real plain text files served as text/plain.
Those are the files typically included in new open source projects and
a wget or curl is just a easier and faster than fumbling with
copy/paste to add a license to a project (though the fumbling may just
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
What's the state of robots.txt and the wiki? If this page will be
showing up in search results, I'd like it to slightly clearly identify
itself as a brainstorm that is not endorsed/approved.
I modified the page to be clear about that.
(We don't have a
Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com writes:
Thank you for taking it into account.
I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the
process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual
prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive
discussion and
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out
that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a
common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately.
Driven by this question, I think we might want a FAQ entry
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
http://opensource.org/faq#license-discussion
Luis, we can point to it from license pages.
Is there any way to add that in bulk? I assume no but wanted to ask :)
Not really, sorry. I mean, yes in theory, but the setup overhead would
make it only worth it
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
Additionally, I wish to apologize to the authors of CeCILL on behalf
of myself as the new chair of the licensing committee. While their
submission predates my chairmanship, I was aware of their submission
when I took over the chair, and still dropped the ball.
Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com writes:
Please do note: if you mean the wiki, I have been able to edit the wiki page,
with a newly created wiki account. Unless it has been manually approved
without me requesting it, then this doesn't sound like intended behavior?
Sorry if I misunderstand.
Thank
I'm posting this on behalf of Alex Siegal, who is CC'd, because he's
having trouble posting to our list (the posts disappear, never even end
up in the moderation queue -- we'll take it up separately with the
infrastructure crew). Alex writes:
I would like to use the Frameworx license. What, if
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
That sounds great. And to be clear, I don't expect one person to do
all of them :) So if anyone wants to start in before Sankarshan has
time, by all means, do!
Yes, please. But that wiki page will help a lot, to coordinate avoid
duplicated work.
(Do you want
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
I'll also set up a wiki page (location TBD) to track which licenses
have been reviewed (based on #2 and #3), so people aren't opening the
same licenses over and over again.
Luis, I've created the page as we discussed:
[moving to infrastructure@, with license-discuss@ on BCC now]
Brian Behlendorf br...@behlendorf.com writes:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, Karl Fogel wrote:
Matthew Flaschen matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu writes:
See http://www.discourse.org/ and http://discourse.org/
It is still in beta.
I tried it out
Jilayne Lovejoy jilayne.love...@openlogic.com writes:
Martin - you read my mind, as I was just about to send an update of the
outstanding OSI-SPDX License List issues. I'm copying Karl Fogel, John
Cowan, as they are on the original string helping with these issues, as
well as the license-discuss
Matthew Flaschen matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu writes:
On 01/05/2013 09:42 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
I've personally never seen open source forum software that wasn't an
abysmal nightmare from a usability perspective, whereas many people
here have email clients that they have chosen and customized
Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com writes:
About every time I have seen this question, its meaning has been:
Is this PHP program Open Source simply because the source of a PHP
program is *available*, therefore 'open' source?
The source code of the application is provided, therefore open. (in
Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com writes:
On 7 January 2013 11:06, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
Would you like to suggest a change to the wording of that FAQ answer?
I would reword the existing question or add a new question: If I have
the source code, does this make it open source
Ben Reser b...@reser.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
What I meant was a specific rewording. In other words, I'm inviting you
to do the work you're inviting me to do :-).
I'll do it, it's a good point.
Ben, thank you -- looking forward
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote:
A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public
License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
I've personally never seen open source forum software that wasn't an
abysmal nightmare from a usability perspective, whereas many people
here have email clients that they have chosen and customized
specifically to deal with their workflow. So I'm very reluctant
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
Based on the discussions we've had here over the second half of 2012,
I've published a revised version of opensource.org/licenses this
morning.
A few minor tweaks were made to the last draft based on comments here;
the biggest being a reference to the FAQ and
J Evans jaanev...@yahoo.com writes:
Hello, would you please remove me from this distribution?
Done.
-K
From: Bruce Perens br...@perens.com
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:46:29 AM
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com writes:
E.g.: This project was created by Google 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 from Foo back to its
github repo.
I'm not sure a license that has such
Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com writes:
Ben, I was not giving you a very serious reply (but rather a dismissive
one), because frankly I don't think you are approaching this discussion
with a serious attitude, attention to the subject, and/or a sense of
perspective.
Personal defenses might be
Bruce Perens br...@perens.com writes:
I question why you didn't call a halt when the discussion was
obviously becoming a testosterone contest past the point of any useful
content. OK, you'll never have the time to moderate. That's fine. What
isn't fine is that you don't find someone else to do it.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
I'd count that as another reason *not* to provide plain text license
files. I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license
statement in the source tree of each program that points to the
OFFICIAL version of that license on the OSI website.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
Have we (OSI) ever seriously adding putting plain text versions of
licenses (where available) to the OSI website?
While this makes no difference to the legal implications of a license,
converting to plain text destroys information useful for human
forget color forgetco...@gmail.com writes:
I'm a visual artist and composer. Code is my medium. I'm interested in
releasing some of my code as open source, but don't quite understand
the licensing and copyright relationships between an open source
codebase and the artworks that the code may
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com writes:
Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
which claims the
Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to
3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to /licenses/afl-3.0.php,
and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0.
http://wayback.archive.org/web
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
Indeed, my internal wayback machine can assure you that all were
approved by the OSI board.
Heh, good to have that confirmation.
I previously requested that the earlier versions of those licenses be
deprecated. There is probably still software in the
Michael Bernstein mich...@fandomhome.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to
3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to /licenses/afl-3.0.php,
and now
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
We should draw straws to see who has to contact them and help them
clean up their licensing mess.
Isn't there some rule that whoever proposes drawing straws automatically
has drawn the short one?
ducks
-K
On Apr 4, 2012 4:48 PM, Richard Fontana
Okay, I've completely rewritten the introductory text on the page, based
on comments on this list, and removed LGPL from the short group at the
top (also based on comments on this list). Comments welcome, please.
http://opensource.org/licenses-draft
I think it's still an open question whether
! :-)
-K
-Original Message-
From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org; license-rev...@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain
and CC0.
(This seems
think :-) .)
-K
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: April-04-12 3:53 PM
To: mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: 'Karl Fogel'
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page;
please
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
Exactly true, which is why a recommendation without knowledge of the facts
is doubly dangerous. The blind are leading the blind. [...]
See my reply to Michael just now, which I think would also be my reply
to this mail, because it addresses the points
(This seems appropriate for both license-discuss@ and license-review@, so
I'm posting it in both places.)
I've been seeing an increasing number of inquiries about the public
domain and open source, and about CC0 and open source. A few of those
inquiries have come here, but I'm also getting them
Johnny Solbu joh...@solbu.net writes:
Hi.
I tried maling FSFs licensing department, but the FSFs website says
something to the effect that if they have answered the question on
their webpage, the mail will be unanswered, and I have not received a
reply. So I'm asuming it is answered on their
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com writes:
Removing the CC's again. Alexander, you have twice been barred from
license-discuss because of your repetitve arguments which do not
address points already made by other people.
Well, that wasn't the reason (at least not the most recent time he was
banned).
be about doing it over. Did I miss some announcement?
On 03/09/2012 08:55 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
If you want an organization that recommends licenses, the FSF is happy
to help. I agree that OSI should have a short-list of recommended
A reminder, folks: please don't escalate the personal stuff -- even when
you think the other person is doing so.
The quoted bit of conversation below, for example, is not meant to
target the specific people involved. I just picked it because it was
recent and on my screen. There are other
Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de writes:
Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG) is writing an Open Source License
Compendium, which we intend to be made available to the whole Open
Source community.
Large (IT) companies are particularily challenged by the quantity of
licenses and their various versions.
[I think Karsten reposted this because there was a moderation delay on
the original message, to which I have already responded on-list. Please
use that original thread if possible.]
-K
Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de writes:
Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG) is writing an Open Source License
Matthew Flaschen matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu writes:
The first part sounds plausible. An additional permission should not
invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to
forget or ignore the exception and say I just want my GPL. That
applies to GPL + classpath exception. In
Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com writes:
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 'reasonable
attribution terms'.
Basically my feelings too,
=a39c64ba22843519eb0b6bd114b22a3dd2ef4847
Thanks!
Very glad to hear it, and congratulations! :-)
Best,
-Karl
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes:
Hi Karl and all!
I hope you are well and I am looking for advice, again :-)
We
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Well, here's a list of OSI-approved licenses that Tom Callaway and I
judged non-FOSS when we examined them (though I haven't looked at
these in a few years). (This does not include the Artistic License 1.0
and certain of its OSI-approved derivatives,
John, thanks -- having this analysis helps a lot. That language in the
Frameworx license is very odd; I wonder what the backstory is. I
can't see now what the motivation might have been.
-K
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
Adaptive Public License http
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that
anyway, and to publish the rationale. In at least one case (OCLC-2.0)
at least one issue involved restrictions on
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:50:53PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that
anyway
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
That sums it up pretty well. The ~70-license OSI list will give anyone
new to open source a rather distorted view of FOSS licensing. For
example, and the part that bothers me the most, there is an
overrepresentation of mostly-obsolete licenses that I
Bruce Perens br...@perens.com writes:
OSI should deny certification of this license for the reasons already
discussed, and because:
It was never submitted -- I don't think Clark intended to, in fact.
pgp1e4kmeV3a1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes:
Hi Karl and all!
I hope you are well and I am looking for advice, again :-)
We are discussing which PDF library to include in Tiki Wiki CMS
Groupware (http://tiki.org)
TCPDF is an option but there is a special clause
It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU
The license-review@ list is now considering the second release candidate
(RC2) of the Mozilla Public License 2.0. If you wish to participate in
this, please do so on license-review@.
(The archives of that list should soon have my post with the details,
though the archives haven't updated quite
When referring people to the OSI FAQ (http://opensource.org/faq), please
take advantage of the fact that every answer on the FAQ is now directly
targetable by URL. For example:
http://opensource.org/faq#commercial
http://opensource.org/faq#avoid-unapproved-licenses
etc, etc.
To discover
72 matches
Mail list logo
