Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may > have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have > copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been

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

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 I looked at were all spurious

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

e as well. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:18 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org

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

I don't see how you could convince OSI of this in any way that would not involve submission and approval of CC0. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, so different groups have different opinions. I'm glad Fedora views CC0 > as meeting

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

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its > kind.  If

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

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > If I recall correctly, there were no objections to CC0 when it was > submitted for OSI approval. It was withdrawn by the steward after > prolonged patent clause commentary. considering what the > implications of

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

and others are under the OSI-approved license. You will need to > use the version control system to determine which is which. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Be

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

G.md#1-license > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as > > > legal advice. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cem Karan > &g

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

C requesting that CC resubmit CC0 and then the OSI board approving > it. > > Nigel > > On 3/1/17, 9:37 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" > <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@sharpeleven.org> > wrote: > > I really lik

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

d#1-license > > Note that I am not a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as legal > advice. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard

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

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:37:13AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > Strictly speaking, the use of > CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership. I guess that's a bit of an overstatement, but still given the nature of the angst I've heard from US government people over the years conc

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

I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as problematic, or non-problematic,

Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent

License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific doctrine. I can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to provide guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the OSI occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > With all that in mind, I think that OSI needs a (mostly) data-driven > "popular" shortlist, based on a scan of public code + application of > (mostly?) objective rules to the outcome of that scan. > > To maintain OSI's reputation as

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > The proliferation report attempted to address this problem by categorizing > existing licenses. These categories were, intentionally or not, seen as the > "popular or strong communities list" and "everything else". Without a > process

Re: [License-discuss] Is the OBM License OSD compatible?

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:19:44PM +, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 06/01/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > GPLv3 (and the variants, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) do *not* permit > > "Additional Terms" (despite the section header called "Additional > > Terms"); they permit "Additional Permissions" which

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

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 04:17:03PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source > license to the US Government. > > > https://code.gov/ > > "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of > explicit patent language), but

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

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:26:03PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > > The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the > licensing of React Another reference: Facebook has published a brief FAQ on what it calls the "Facebook BSD+Patents license": https:

[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the licensing of React [1], which is essentially the 3-clause BSD license along with, in a separate file, an 'Additional Grant of Patent Rights' [2]. The Additional Grant of Patent Rights is a patent license grant that includes

Re: [License-discuss] Is OSI still alive?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:01:40PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Just curious as I get crickets in license-review. > > I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation...but an update > on NOSA v2 and UCL would be nice. Sorry Nigel, I have now responded on license-review. Richard

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

- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: >

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

hanks, > Cem Karan > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re

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

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to them that > Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a long time/forever > unless they took out the patent clause that the open data folks wanted. So > they

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

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative > is this something that should be revisited? Yes, I think so. > Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is > open source if it passes the OSD

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

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > From: License-discuss > > > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > > > > > Interestingly enough,

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

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why > > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > Are you suggesting a dual license scheme, where all

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

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues > (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a > simple > disclaimer of liability, we would. We

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in > relation to the ARL OSL? No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that

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

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:19:31PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" wrote: > > > CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright > rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for

[License-discuss] New settings for license--discuss

Greetings, The OSI recently changed the settings for license-discuss to permit posting only from subscribers to the list. All nonsubscribers who attempt to post to the list will receive an informative rejection message. This step was particularly necessary because of the enormous volume of spam

Re: [License-discuss] Can OSI take stance that U.S. public domain is open source?

On Sat, 3 May 2014 22:07:19 +0300 Henrik Ingo henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi wrote: Does the US government grant itself patents, Yes. and if so, what does it do with those patents? Many are licensed to the private sector for revenue. - RF ___

Re: [License-discuss] Can OSI take stance that U.S. public domain is open source?

On Sat, 03 May 2014 14:00:53 -0500 Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org writes: Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0 inconsistency problem in a different form. Consider the case of public domain source code created

Re: [License-discuss] Can OSI take stance that U.S. public domain is open source?

On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:55:55 -0500 Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: 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

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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:51 -0400 Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use approved licenses Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word standard

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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:20 -0300 Bruno F. Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote: Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other meanings of standard, when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the term standard is really confusing... I think so too now, in light of this thread

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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700 Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote: Suggested solution, can we use the word common instead of standard? And our definition of common should be something relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus licenses (like the GPL v2) whose

Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] Contact to a german site

Ralf, The folks behind OSLiC, noted below (http://dtag-dbu.github.io/oslic/) are I believe mainly associated with Deutsche Telekom, so they might be good contacts to seek out. - RF On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:32:07 -0400 Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org wrote: Ralf, Sorry, but the OSI

Re: [License-discuss] Zimbra licenses ?

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:08:06 +0100 (CET) a...@free.fr wrote: Good morning (i'm living in France), I do not found the Zimbra licenses on OSI web site : - Zimbra Public License : http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-4.html - Zimbra Public EULA :

Re: [License-discuss] Pars pro toto: a fundamental(?) lack in (MIT licensed) (jquery) java-script packages?

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:59:37 +0100 Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de wrote: Question: Is it really necessary to add the MIT license to jquery for using this javascript library compliantly? Note: IANYL, TINLA. So, we might say that Javascript libraries are distributed, namely in the form

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:32:59 -0500 Tzeng, Nigel H. nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu wrote: The wording appears to me to be neutral, just mildly embarrassing for the OSI that it couldn't get it's act together to actually accept CC0 or reject CC0 or provide a useful alternative for folks wishing to do a

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:50 -0800 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this? It seems a useful addition. I would suggest the following changes: Use initial caps for 'open source definition'. Change 'perpetual and irrevocable' to 'perpetual'. The draft

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:22 -0800 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: Hey, all- I was just looking at the FAQ entry on CC0, and two things jump out: 1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular rejected license, and no others. I would recommend removing this FAQ

Re: [License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:28:54 -0800 (PST) Brian Behlendorf br...@behlendorf.com wrote: On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Luis Villa wrote: The board meeting notes, in every case that I'm aware of, are pretty uninformative- they simply say approved/not approved. I'm open to persuasion on this point, I

Re: [License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:33:03 -0800 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: - Any comments on what information is/isn't presented? Maybe a link to the license steward's FAQ, if any (perhaps with some appropriate disclaimer that the OSI does not necessarily endorse anything in such FAQs)? This will only be

Re: [License-discuss] Rejected license list [was Re: TrueCrypt license (not OSI-approved; seeking history, context).]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:35:20 -0700 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@opensource.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: Might be a good idea to finally start the list of non-open licenses someone

Re: [License-discuss] Rejected license list [was Re: TrueCrypt license (not OSI-approved; seeking history, context).]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:09:02 -0400 John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Luis Villa scripsit: Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have rejected, including the rationales for rejection. Your list would presumably be a subset, as some licenses might have been

Re: [License-discuss] Rejected license list [was Re: TrueCrypt license (not OSI-approved; seeking history, context).]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:36:56 -0400 Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:35:20 -0700 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: Your list would presumably be a subset, as some licenses might have been submitted and rejected without a later, false claim to being open

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license and non disclosure agreement

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:54:41 +0200 Quentin Lefebvre quentin.lefeb...@inria.fr wrote: Hi, Currently working on an open source project, we are looking for an appropriate license for it. We would like something that allows us to work with people in a way such that : - we can be informed

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license and non disclosure agreement

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:59:38 +0200 Quentin Lefebvre quentin.lefeb...@inria.fr wrote: First of all, and to be completely clear about this, our point is not to make money with our project... Let's start from another point of view. On http://qt-project.org/downloads , we can read : Qt is

Re: [License-discuss] Started discussion with Figaro re their license.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:38:02 -0400 John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Karl Fogel scripsit: 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

Re: [License-discuss] System 76's BeanBooks Public License v1.0

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:50:29 -0700 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: I just wanted to raise this thread again; I'm interested in discussion/comment from others but have had only the barest time to skim. (Same here.) Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into the

Re: [License-discuss] System 76's BeanBooks Public License v1.0

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:06:31 -0400 Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: Submit is susceptible to a broad reading that would give System76 a privileged license relative to everyone else (somewhat like the old NPL). Re-reading this, I may not have been sufficiently clear. Section

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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59:43AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:01:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: license oompatibility, License compatibility, that is. :) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:48:06PM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote: Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was more problematic than useful. Linking

Re: [License-discuss] Minor change to website

Pam, Luis: I have fixed this. - Richard On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:27:01PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: Hi, Pam- Right place; right comment. I'm a bit out of pocket right now with regards to passwords for the site (a long, sad story involving multiple computers and a lot of travel ;) but will

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

like OSI to promote a license chooser of its own. But in the meantime I'm pretty OK with linking to a variety of license choosers. Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser

Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:44:02PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Zooko, It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3. I believe this is indeed possible, Not with an

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. However, if you have a competent lawyer

Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?

). - Richard     Thanks     Bruce On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I believe was approved in haste

Re: [License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?

Would it be clearer to say: I have some code written in a scripting language. Does that mean it's open source by definition? 'Source code for a program written in a script language' is confusing to me because, as phrased, it could describe situations where the 'source code' spoken of is

Re: [License-discuss] proposal for revising (and making relevant) the code of conduct

On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 08:04:23PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: Sigh. The actual attachments are as follows: [...] +1 from me. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by claiming those are

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent (FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided. To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that CPAL is a free software license

Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:57:10AM +, Gervase Markham wrote: On 09/12/12 18:46, Luis Villa wrote: So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a *blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of

Re: [License-discuss] The alphabetical list

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:19:17PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: Heard loud and clear re usefulness of the alphabetical list; it will not go away. I'm surprised by that, so (in a different thread) I'd welcome more detail on

Re: [License-discuss] plain text license versions?

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:37:38PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this requirement? For licenses that appear literally to require inclusion of a copy of the license text? I have wondered whether we ought to start treating

Re: [License-discuss] plain text license versions?

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:45:00PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Rick Moen scripsit: Years ago, I reminded readers on this mailing list that possibly useful reciprocal licences for non-software use by people disliking GFDL include GPLv2, and that FSF even published a piece explaining the

Re: [License-discuss] plain text license versions?

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:07:44PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: As a practical matter, indicating, tracking and relying on waiver is a bit of a pain. e.g., lets say upstream says: I give you a copy of the license this work is licensed under by pointing you at

Re: [License-discuss] plain text license versions?

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:13:11PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Richard Fontana scripsit: That assumes that the printed text is not source code in the sense meant in sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2 but is instead object code or executable form (section 3). I believe the better interpretation

Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:10:49PM -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote: On 08/14/2012 11:52 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: Fedora used to spend a lot of time stressing out over this question, but recently, after counsel with Red Hat Legal, we concluded that if someone is explicitly and clearly

Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:22:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com): I believe I am the counsel Tom is referring to, though the Fedora policy conclusion Tom refers to was prepared by Tom. Nevertheless I would see it as Fedora adopting more or less

Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02

On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote: The CPOL 1.02 license was discussed on this list in 2009. [1, and see attached.) As far as I can tell from reading my old emails and reviewing the OSI license list, it was never approved by OSI. Richard Fontana said this about

Re: [License-discuss] CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Gervais, Mathieu wrote: Hi, Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ? (i.e. http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html ) I am not sure when CDDL 1.1 was introduced but I

Re: [License-discuss] a GPLv3 compatible attribution for MIT/BSD?

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:30:54PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: In the last decade, the aforementioned group of Web 2.0 / SaaS hucksters started referring to mandatory runtime advertising as 'attribution', too -- a rather propagandistic sleight of tongue, in my view -- an approach that reached the

Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox

Re: [License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 03:50:51PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: Without making any assertions as to the open-sourceness or lack thereof of CPAL-1.0, I'm surprised to see it absent from this list -- whenever the subject of mis-approval comes up, that one's usually mentioned, for reasons discussed

Re: [License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:28:51PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: Ricoh Source Code Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the obnoxious BSD advertising clause: 5.1. Advertising Materials. All

Re: [License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

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, and to publish the rationale. In at least

Re: [License-discuss] Reply to various recent postings on the crayon license issue

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45:34AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: On 12/19/2011 09:54 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: nor are we the author of any of the licenses we track(1)), so we're not the appropriate entity to submit what we find to the OSI for approval. Can you tell me how many licenses are in

Re: [License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:57:04AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: On 12/19/2011 10:42 AM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: 69 is way too few. In my little research of just around 600 man pages I found over 100 different licenses -- mostly due to slight wording changes. Fedora is tracking 300+