?
I notice that the license at Glassfish has also been updated to have
Oracle as the license steward. Would anyone object if I ask them to
submit the revision to license-review for approval?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Mike Milinkovich
mailto:mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org>>
wrote:
through the cracks here, or is there some longer story?
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
. The OSI approves licenses.
IANAL, but to me this is not a license. It does not by itself grant any
rights. Therefore I wonder if it is even valid for consideration?
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
Li
ses.)
This seems like a generally good thing regardless of law and venue?
I am not sure whether you are referring to "preventing code from being
orphaned" or "allow re-licensing under other well-known licenses"?
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclip
;Broken" is a strong word. But we were motivated by concrete requests,
not just well-meaning conjecture. None of us have the time to make up
unnecessary process enhancements.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
_
At our last face-to-face meeting, the OSI Board discussed the topic of
FLOSS licenses targeted at specific languages and jurisdictions. As you can
imagine, with the interest in reducing license proliferation, the
conversation was quite lively. However, if we want open source to be a
truly worldwide
Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment
(JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported
by Apache An
If the license steward doesn't have a dedicated license page
(other than the text), like EPL, the closest to a license homepage
would be the legal page I assume...[1] However, it only has other
Eclipse information and not about the license. I'm not sure it helps.
I provisiona
> > Well, I think that many would argue that such a work is a collective,
> > rather than a joint work. In fact, it seems to me that most of the
> > large collaborative communities are running under that assumption.
>
> A collective work is defined as "a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology
On 2013-07-19, at 11:31 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Ben Reser scripsit:
>
>> This is an important point. The only way the copyright owner isn't
>> special for an *overall* *work* (emphasis is important) is if there
>> are so many copyright holders that it becomes impossible to get them
>> all to
Larry,
I think that there is a broad consensus that a new attempt at license
categorization should be undertaken. However, I think it is fair to say that
everyone believes that such a process will take a significant amount of
time to initiate, and run to completion. And we all need to recogniz
I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision. My
assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all significant
references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new version.
Similarly, the original list included both the CPL and the EPL. When the CPL
was depr
> -Original Message-
> From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Luis Villa
>
> [1] The very short version of my objection to removal of MPL is that it
> addresses a clear need (predictable, compatible copyleft) that is not
> -Original Message-
> Apache won't allow LGPL for deps?
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-d
ensource.org
> Cc: 'Karl Fogel'
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page;
please
> review.
>
> Mike Milinkovich scripsit:
>
> > So this is basically re-opening up the whole can of worms that the
> > license proliferation committee
Karl,
So this is basically re-opening up the whole can of worms that the license
proliferation committee struggled with some years back that led them to
create the category "License that are popular and widely used or with strong
communities". Notably missing from your list are the "weak copyleft"
I would point out that one tangible result from the report was the deprecation
of the Common Public License, in favour of the Eclipse Public License.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: "Smith, McCoy"
Sender: license-di
> -Original Message-
> I agree with you about the problem. I have repeatedly suggested that
> Apache do code scans on its distributed software so that every downstream
> customer doesn't have to do it. But we have neither the interest nor the
> money to deal with hypothetical problems in a
> -Original Message-
> A truly independent open source software developer probably has nothing
> to fear other than personal embarrassment. It is the larger companies,
> including acquirers or consolidators of open source software and the
> corporate users of that software, who need to unde
I just wanted to point out that this thread has now gone quite off topic. The
original question concerned bundling GPL with EPL, not GPL with proprietary
code.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: David Woolley
Sender: license
Larry,
Indeed. I believe I alluded to the notion that not everyone agrees with the
FSF's position in my blog post.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: "Lawrence Rosen"
Sender: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.or
Mike,
The answer, as always, is "it depends". Have you read [1] and [2]? They
capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation.
However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario.
[1] http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/
[2] http://www
22 matches
Mail list logo
