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

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] FreeAndFair license

esday, June 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com>; Joe Kiniry <kin...@freeandfair.us> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Always take the more generous offer of software! I'm also copying some friends at OSI, but I'm not copying your email. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 From: Joe Kiniry [mailto:ki

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Richard Fontana wrote: > Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any > use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD > license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly > excludes patent licenses) and the ones

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Richard Fontana wrote: > ... which would be more consistent with the ARL lawyers' apparent belief that > some horrible disaster will occur if they put US published code under a > copyright license. :) Richard, what horrible disaster will come if OSI approves CC0 as an open source license?

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

n't think I can answer... So is that legal advice from you via the internet? To just go for it? Awesome! Hey look...flying livestock! :) Regards, Nigel From: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Date: Wednesday, Mar 08, 2017, 3:08 PM

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking > moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an open source > copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 > because the libraries and functions used to

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

m: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:27 PM To: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD [] IANALTINLA and all that. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:57

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Software patents are terrible in part because they pertain to the source code itself, thus affecting the distribution terms on that code. Patents don't pertain to source code or to code distribution, at least not in legal terms of direct patent infringement.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Richard Fontana suggested: > So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when > used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", > for example? Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies might be able to live

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

o pursue infringement claims against users is not a license we want to encourage the use of, by the government or anyone else... Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: > Somet

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

ere IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. YMMV of course. Best, Jim On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Jim Wright wrote: >

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Jim Wright wrote: > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any event > - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to whatever > extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. Similarly as > to patents, I don’t want to have to look

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated as any DOD approved open source license. Isn't that already true for every software distributor, including the U.S. government? Every distributor controls its own licensing strategies. Even

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Richard Fontana wrote: > I think the code.mil approach is much more elegant without introducing the > use of CC0. Richard, I'm not as concerned with elegance as you are. Most FOSS licenses aren't elegant. Whatever code.mil is recommending has nothing to do with the elegance of its

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Would CC0 plus Apache licenses resolve the patent problem? /Larry -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:37 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re:

[License-discuss] The Federal Register Process

in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:54 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: L

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: > The Federal Register process may be the best way forwards. I'll bring it up > in the next Federal Source Code policy meeting. That may be a good solution. The Federal Register process requires public notice; public hearings; public feedback; written proposals based on

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

suggestion, Stephen, I won't bother with a FOIA request "to the government lawyers." :-) /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. -Orig

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

k up publicly about their public legal issue that concerns all of us who use the Apache license with public domain components in our software. That's not the way the open source community works out such issues. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 9

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

quot;severability" is a potential problem with Apache software? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https:

Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem Karan wrote: . . . the truly serious issue is severability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). The concern is that if the USG uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses are declared unenforceable

[License-discuss] More information about NOTICE files

o the bottom. Delete nothing. So what if there is no "short version" of the NOTICE file? Hardly anybody but lawyers read it anyway. And it remains a convenient document to stroke the egos of every important contributor to the work at no additional cost to the project or dist

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Chuck Swiger wrote: > This is a pretty common mistake that developers tend to make when reviewing > licenses. The law doesn't come in a fully denormalized grammar suitable for > context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers. The law DOES come in a "fully denormalized

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

o:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:48 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge. Instead they said simply: "Here is this

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

John Cowan wrote: > what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses > they have issued? Apprarently so. Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Henrik Ingo wrote: MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license. I also would like to see a reference to that written statement. But I believe it to be true only if it means: . . . does

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Ben Tilly wrote: > Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > shall not require a royalty or other fee for

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Nigel Tzeng wrote: So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat? [] But you can redistribute RHEL if you don't modify it. If you modify it, apply a different trademark to distinguish it in the marketplace. No

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for software: 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. I assumed

[License-discuss] The License Talking-About List

Cem Karan wrote: > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to > license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this? Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

c domain works. Almost any FOSS contract will work to protect the licensor. /Larry -Original Message- From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:59 PM To: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@opensource.o

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Nigel Tzeng wrote: > The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would > think that would be a different scenario. If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). I license my

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

software. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. From: Lawre

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way through sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly from the licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can directly enforce

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Regardless of whether a licensor owns the copyright, distribution of that work is still a conveyance of a piece of software in commerce. Among other things, that is a contractual act. Even public domain software can cause harm. A disclaimer of warranty and liability -- even for the public

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

McCoy Smith wrote: > I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact that > there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that > waiver is ineffective? Liability for commercial products (e.g., electronic devices and cars) cannot be entirely

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

ution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright > < > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright < > Caution-Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright > > > (english >

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

Miles Fidelman wrote: I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for for-profit hosting. Stephen Paul Weber responded: Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that

Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Cem Karan wrote: > Most of our researchers work for the US Federal Government and under US > copyright law any works they produce during the course of their duties do not > have copyright attached, so we have to rely on contract law as a protection > mechanism within the USA. I don't

Re: [License-discuss] Source-attribution licenses and Javascript compatibility

Andi McClure wrote: > The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers to > "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code". > Without a definition, how do I (or someone who uses my project) know whether > cases #2 and #3 are "source

[License-discuss] Words that don't mean derivative work

Simon Phipps the other day used the word "integration" to mean "derivative work." Recently on this and other open source email lists we've seen "combinations," "inclusion," "kernel space," "shim," "interface" and "API", "header file", and "linking". None of those is ipso facto a derivative

Re: [License-discuss] Words that don't mean derivative work

additional clause re synching] Diane Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> >

[License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0

, 2016 12:32 AM To: License submissions for OSI review <license-rev...@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay >

Re: [License-discuss] Orphan Works: Summary of proposed 17 USC 514

Henrik Ingo wrote: > But you're right that they also stand to gain from co-opting orphaned works > and then including them into new, copyrighted productions. The term "co-opting" is out of place. Here is the constitutional view: As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2012, facilitating the

[License-discuss] PLI Open Source and Free Software 2015 on 12/16

hestek Legal) and Stephen LaPorte (Wikimedia): These trademark specialists will describe new efforts in the open source community to create and protect trademarks for free software. * Heather Meeker (O'Melveny & Myers), Cliff Allen (Microsoft), Duane Valz (Google), Jim Wright (Oracle), Lawren

[License-discuss] Orphan Works: Summary of proposed 17 USC 514

For those who don't want to read the entire report, below is a summary of draft U.S. copyright legislation, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 514, "Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works." The orphan works problem is referred to as "perhaps the single greatest impediment to creating new

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John, an open source license is not a nudum pactum. Consideration abounds in FOSS. Paraphrasing Wikipedia (the easy source for all law references): The Jacobsen v. Katzer case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John Cowan wrote about the word "forever" [1]: > In my non-lawyer opinion, the irrevocability clause of GPL3 hasn't got a leg to stand on. If I put up a sign on my land saying PUBLIC ACCESS PERMITTED and then take it down before prescription kicks in, the fact that the sign also said THIS SIGN

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

John Cowan replied in response to Pam Chestek's comment: > Consider a work available under GPL+proprietary terms, where you get to do > non-GPL things if you have paid. Then it would not be enough to show that > the work was available under a proprietary license to allow you to download > it

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

. Because this is a derivative work of an MPLv2 program, the resulting Apache SQRT module is licensed under MPLv2. Every program that invokes this Apache SQRT module retains its own license, FOSS or proprietary. /Larry From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com] Sent: Thursday

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

categories. For both binaries and source code. Caveat emptor. Caveat derivator. /Larry P.S. Nigel is correct. I meant EPL not ECL. I write too fast From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:36 PM To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

changes to fix bugs) is not a copyright problem. A bigger change would require that someone intelligent on the PMC evaluate it as a contribution and make a comment about it in the NOTICE file. /Larry Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill

[License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

moderation, so I intend to send it onto other lists. All quotations are from *public* ASF lists. Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https

[License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

don't know if this message will survive legal-discuss@ list moderation, so I intend to send it onto other lists. All quotations are from public ASF lists. Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill

Re: [License-discuss] Is what's made with Open Source, Open Source?

Gareth, it all depends on what is a work based on the Program. See GPLv2 §0, part of which is copied below. Opinions on that definition differ. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

with other FOSS software. The above is a relevant open source question to all of our customers. Thanks for your thoughts. /Larry From: Simon Phipps [mailto:webm...@opensource.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:51 AM To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Nigel, your answer echoes many others: If I have to start checking every Apache package for GPL code I'll have to strongly recommend that we approach all Apache packages with caution. If we amended the proposal to leave out the GPL licenses, would that calm your concerns? I'd

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b 0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf. Should OSI say more than not approved? /Larry -Original Message- From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Lawrence Rosen Cc: CAVO Subject

[License-discuss] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting Officials (CAVO). Thanks OSI! There was a question on that email list recently about why CAVO prefers GPLv3 for voting software. I had recommended GPLv3 to CAVO several months earlier. Below was my response. The local

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

again this ignores the community motivations for the policy. The OSI is not qualified to make judgments on ASF cultural mission. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lawrence Rosen Sent: ‎5/‎25/‎2015 11:54 AM To: legal-disc...@apache.org Cc: 'License Discuss'; Lawrence Rosen Subject: RE

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy Your original proposal was (quoting the heart of it; for any readers not familiar refer back to the whole email): Proposal: Apache projects may accept contributions under ANY OSI-approved open source

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:24 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy I don't see how you are going to do that unless the OSI are going to maintain complex lists. If this is the OSI are launching a license

[License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

[cross-posted to legal-discuss@apache and license-discuss@opensource] [The below is my response to someone else's email on another list. It is rather legal/technical, but some of you may now understand why I'm not as afraid of patents as I used to be. I'd like to calm some of you down also and

[License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects

Elsewhere on internal Apache member email lists we've been discussing a patent that may or may not apply to Apache software. I already quoted publicly the strongly-held opinion of one Apache member that this patent is just plain BS, IMHO. He may be right. My concern is that Apache members are

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

used the word aggregation on purpose. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:07 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; License Discuss Cc: Legal Discuss; European Legal Network Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

copyright law. I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something supportive. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: Proposal

[License-discuss] Note from another list by OSI's Patrick Masson

FYI. /Larry By Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org mailto:mas...@opensource.org . Here is some general information in our FAQ: http://opensource.org/faq#approved-licenses-only Interestingly, as this appears to be increasing (i.e. governments/agencies looking to adopt open

Re: [License-discuss] 3rd Party License policy, the board, and the term FREE

. /Larry Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

Maybe we can summarize so far: ULTRA-STRONG(AGPL) STRONG (GPL) MORE THAN WEAK (LGPL) ALMOST WEAK (EPL) WEAK(MPL) VERY WEAK (APACHE) ULTRA-WEAK (CC0) This rather simple scale is not reflected in copyright law or any

[License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz referred me to this thought-provoking link: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/meaning-%E2%80%9Ccopyleft%E2 %80%9D-eupl Can anyone here precisely identify the language in the GPL licenses that makes it strong rather than weak copyleft? And can anyone

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

not much of an issue recently in many jurisdictions. :-) As a self-employed lawyer, I'm glad that not every programmer has the need to become a lawyer also. /Larry Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill. Rosenlaw Einschlag (www.rosenlaw.com

[License-discuss] Open Source and Open Standards

Friends, I presented a few months ago at Santa Clara University about Open Source and Open Standards http://htlj.org/symposium/speakers/lawrence-rosen/ . If you get a free hour sometime, play that presentation. Follow that link and enjoy a legal/software topic. I'm the short chubby guy

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[side issue below] John Cowan wrote: In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract. I'm not sure that's true for sublicensed software. That's why I objected to the sublicensing provision in a recently-approved license. Most licenses nowadays fortunately are directly from the

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

to copyrighted articles! Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill. -Original Message- From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

Nigel and others, We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here is what EFF says we can do in the United States: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq Perhaps we can rely on their well-researched legal analysis for now. Someone complained

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

:09, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Nigel and others, We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here is what EFF says we can do in the United States: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq Perhaps we can

Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD with additional clause forbidding key disclosure

Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction would not be OSD-compliant? Why are you trying to open source your additional clause forbidding key disclosure? It is hard for me to recognize such private and confidential commercial transactions as open source. Already some

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

John Cowan wrote: Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code; Do you mean grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of the license? /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015

Re: [License-discuss] Wikipedia Content

Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like? Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: Yes and no. Yes, it requires

Re: [License-discuss] Wikipedia Content

Content Lawrence Rosen scripsit: Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like? [snip] Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates

[License-discuss] Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3

/newsletter1.html. Please direct any comments or questions or support to cavocont...@gmail.com mailto:cavocont...@gmail.com . /Larry ** Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3 by Lawrence Rosen There are many ways to distribute software. Valuable software nowadays

Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] OS license for seeds (!)

on this. /Larry [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag ( http://www.rosenlaw.com/ www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD From: Patrick

[License-discuss] How licenses treat patents

to the patent problem is the one proposed by Richard Stallman and lots of others: Prohibit software patents entirely. But that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, so I hope OSI doesn't waste its time traveling down that particular long and winding road. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

Philip Odence suggested: Hey maybe well-understood is a good alternative to standard. Note that the GPL is one of the least-understood licenses around, even by some of its supporters who make the most outrageous claims about linking. :-) /Larry From: Philip Odence

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

attempts to steer people toward some subset of those licenses. Especially if you hint that they are in any way, shape or form standard licenses. That's overreach for which you are not legally qualified. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag ( http://www.rosenlaw.com/ www.rosenlaw.com

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

for software. /Larry -Original Message- From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:40 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses? Lawrence Rosen wrote: Simon

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses? Lawrence Rosen scripsit: Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

Hi Philip, Thanks for the Black Duck Top 20 list of open source licenses. Your list is the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too personally. But this list demonstrates that even the ways that we calculate popularity are flawed. For example: * Are GPLv2 and

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do. Larry Sent from my tablet and thus brief Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote: ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages

my own history how much of a challenge this is. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is

Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages

fighting over patent provisions and has grown accustomed to OSL/AFL/NOSL 3.0. It has been frustrating to watch people here try to place licenses in broad categories without understanding fully the subtle differences in their legal provisions that can have enormous financial impacts. /Larry Lawrence

[License-discuss] PLI Open Source and Free Software 2013 -- SF/web on December 11

and Free Software 2013 - December 11, 2013 in San Francisco (and web) 9:00 - 9:10 Introduction to the Program Lawrence Rosen (Rosenlaw Einschlag) 9:10 - 9:30 Setting the Stage: An Introduction to FOSS and Copyright Concepts Jim Jagielski (Apache Software Foundation and Red Hat) 9:30 - 10:15

Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com

- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:27 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com Lawrence Rosen scripsit

Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com

Jaeger [mailto:jae...@jbb.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:25 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com Dear list, Bradley and Larry have asked me

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

proprietary parts) under licenses of their choice. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Nick Yeates [mailto:nyeat

Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com

source license chooser choosealicense.com Lawrence Rosen scripsit: Does the distribution of a GPL-licensed work along with those separate works convert them into something not separate in the copyright sense? Does a staple or a paper clip or a book binding convert separate works to something

Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: I would guess that Bob's adding a bunch of calls to syslog() into Alice's work might create a derivative work of Alice's work, but that wouldn't convert syslog() itself a derivative work owned by either Alice or Bob, even if Bob statically linked it with Alice's

  1   2   >