FYI, it's completely possible to build an Android device without connecting
to any Google services or usage of any non-open-source software provided by
Google (the radio and other hardware drivers may also be non-open-source
byt come from the hardware manufacturers). However, if you want the users
Another option is to contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, which
represents a number of people who hold copyrights on code in the Linux
kernel and do pursue violators, primarily to get access to the source code
for everyone's benefit. You likely wouldn't be surprised to learn that they
have a l
I see the image in his email, so it was indeed sent out by the list server.
It must have been eaten by something on your end, unfortunately. It might
be best to send a URL to where it can be found instead.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@
In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation to
publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and
license notices. It is generally assumed that nearly all licenses will
incur some sort of attribution obligation, including 'permissive' licenses.
On Fri,
Thanks for summarizing; I think you and I agree :-)
I cannot envision any sort of contract which is designed to allow access to
the code, with modification, distribution, derivation, and other
permissions, but which also allows the USG to enforce any sort of
restrictions on those activities (given
Keep in mind also that if you have any plans to accept contributions to
this codebase (having it be an open source project, instead of just open
source software), using such a license could be quite an impediment. Having
additional copyright holders, who are potentially involved in any actions
you
Maybe I'm just being naive here, but if the USG does not hold copyright on
this code (in the US), what ownership rights does it have? As far as I know
there are no other relevant intellectual property rights involved here,
since it's clearly not a trade secret, and patents are not involved. There
c
I agree completely with Philippe; a statement such as you proposed does not
modify the license, but it indicates to downstream consumers the scenarios
under which they could expect you to (potentially) enforce the attribution
requirement, and situations under which you do not intend to enforce the
For (a), as you'll hear from everyone else, you won't get legal advice on
this list, you need to get that from your own counsel. In my personal
opinion, as a non-lawyer but an avid open source
advocate/consumer/producer, I believe the 'attribution on binary
distribution' provisions are intended to
The zlib license is OSI-approved and does not require attribution:
http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Sagar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a short permissive OSI approved license that doesn't require
> attribution?
>
> The popular permissive open source licenses lik
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> All options will be considered but our original hope was to be able to
> require attribution to everybody with some exceptions (i.e. certain
> customers).
>
This is not a 'waiver', it's a second license. Your sta
The statement 'dual licensed' is illogical here, as only only license is
named (AGPLv3). Since the only license named is the AGPLv3, you'll need to
abide by its terms and obligations, as would anyone who receives a copy of
the software from you. Generally speaking, anyone who is given access to
use
Pam, thanks for bringing your considerable legal attention to this, as I
find it fascinating :-)
The genesis of my statement (which I purposely left ambiguous because IANAL
and IANYL and many here are) is that a set of source files that do not have
any copyright/license statements included and a s
Right, this is potentially a 'dual-license' scenario, where the copyright
holders distribute the code under two (or more) distinct licenses, in
separate distributions. If you receive the code under a non-open-source
license, the presence of the same (or similar) code in another location
under an op
Also, in this situation, the copyright holders of BAR (and thus the
licensors) are the parties that would have standing to pursue any action
against a distributor who distributes a derivative work of BAR without
following the terms of its license (the GPL, or a commercial license). If
someone has l
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs wrote:
> Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time
> the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I
> think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license,
> but not an atto
In that situation, the person who produced the new work will *not* be able
to restrict copy, use, sale, etc. of the new work, since it is a derived
work of the GPL- and/or MIT-licensed original works. The combined work's
license will necessarily need to be compatible with (if not identical to)
the
Most open source software licenses do not control usage in any way, so they
have no impact on the scenario you have imposed. The AGPL is likely the
most notable exception, since it specifically defines this scenario as
constituting a license-controlled event.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:07 PM, ChanM
18 matches
Mail list logo
