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
The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it explicitly
said you get rights a and b but not c, with c a necessary right to copy
and use the software. It should be obvious that - even if you'd disagree
wrt patents - at least for some values of c that is clearly not open source.
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it
explicitly said you get rights a and b but not c, with c a necessary
right to copy and use the software. It should be obvious that - even
if you'd disagree wrt patents - at least for some values of c that
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Richard Fontana
font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
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
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.
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
[Appreciating and agreeing with what you say, FWIW, but I have one thing
to add.]
In the end, certification is just a convenience to the users: it says
that a group of fairly knowledgeable people are willing to stand behind
the cliam that each
Richard,
I just wanted to call out a neat statistical trick you just made:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2014 11:48:13 -0500
Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
I don't know offhand the current count of OSI-approved licenses
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
Is the US governments exclusion of patents that explicit?
The only thing that makes the U.S. Government different from any other
actor in IP law is that it cannot (and therefore its employees acting in
the scope of their employment cannot) acquire copyright on any works
Simon Phipps scripsit:
We did not decide against CC0. The discussion was certainly at a low point
when Creative Commons withdrew it from the approval process, but that's
what happened, not an OSI denial. Had they persisted, I believe OSI would
have needed to face the issue of how licenses
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
That's an interesting angle to bite on...
Does the US government grant itself patents, and if so, what does it do
with those patents?
On 3 May 2014 06:45, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:55:55 -0500
Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
This thread on
Karl Fogel scripsit:
The patent issue would apply just as much if it were MIT- or
BSD-licensed, though, and we'd call it open source then, right?
Indeed. We may not be in the business of approving licenses without
patent grants any more, but nobody can say that licenses that don't
grant
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
Does the US government grant itself patents, and if so, what does it do
with those patents?
In the case of 6630507, they apply criminal sanctions to people who
seek to make use of the patented technology. Google for [patent 6630507].
--
John Cowan
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
___
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 by
Richard Fontana scripsit:
When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7
as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant
in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised
when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depends
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:
Hello Karl,
On 02-05-14 14:55, Karl Fogel 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 the term would be
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
