The possible need for re-licensing under a different open source license is
one the biggest reasons I am generally an advocate for CLAs (with an
appropriate community-based governance organization like the ASF). I find
the cautionary tale of the Mozilla Relicensing Effort [1] illuminating
-- it
On 01/18/2015 02:57 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
As Allison noted, most OSI approved licenses can be used for inbound
use, but we do not take a position on that issue in approving
licenses. [..] Thus, the approval of a license by OSI as meeting the
criteria of the OSD does not reflect a review
On 01/18/2015 11:14 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
The relevant aspect here, seems to me, is that OSI's criteria for open
source licenses *include* whether the *license used inbound* is giving
rights to anyone receiving the software, as set out in the OSD.
Anyone includes the project, a legal entity
Allison Randal scripsit:
If you want specific examples, I'd say GPL and Apache both work fine
with inbound=outbound. GPL takes a position close to compelling
inbound=outbound. Apache 2.0 was specifically designed with
inbound=outbound in mind, you can see fingerprints of it all over the
On 01/20/2015 12:09 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
What does DCO mean in this context?
Developer Certificate of Origin, as used by the Linux Kernel. It's
essentially a way of being more explicit about an inbound=outbound
contribution policy, by having each developer sign off that they
acknowledge
On 20/01/15 19:48, Engel Nyst wrote:
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an OSI
approved license(s) doesn't seem to give the permissions necessary,
within the bounds of the license, for anyone to combine one's project
from different sources and distribute it.
One of
On 01/20/2015 03:24 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has
marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar. But no prior written
permission from Foo was obtained for this. If Foo looks at the
project, notices a bug, and submits a patch under the same
David Woolley scripsit:
It might be needed because it has become important to integrate the
work with work under and otherwise incompatible open source licence.
In the past, I think it has been necessary to remove contributions
from a minor contributor, to achieve this, because they were
Ben Tilly scripsit:
A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has
marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar.
I don't know that that counts as promoting or endorsing (that would
be using the expat XML parser and claiming that James Clark approves
of your coftware), but I see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/01/15 14:14, Engel Nyst wrote:
CLA stands for contributor *license* agreement. It's a non-exclusive
license, plus some stuff. A non-exclusive licensee doesn't have standing
for license enforcement. One needs to be copyright holder or
On 01/20/2015 10:46 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. How is the open source license not good?
How doesn't it give permissions set out in OSD? And WHY was it approved
if it doesn't comply?
You're missing the point. The open source license is good, does give the
permissions
On 01/20/2015 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
I wrote up an example of an open source license that has different
legal effects when used inbound and outbound, but I've deleted it to
avoid taking this thread down a rabbit hole.
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an
On 01/17/2015 10:21 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
Reviewing doesn't seem to have anything to do with it indeed, but other
than that I'm not sure I understand the difference you feel important
here. An open source license is inbound or outbound depending only
on the position /of the speaker/. There
On 01/17/2015 01:57 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
OSI's criteria for open source licenses doesn't include any review of
whether the *license used inbound* would be respectful of developers'
rights and desires for the use of their code, encourage healthy
collaboration in the community of
Engel Nyst scripsit:
There is probably no way to make a statement like this without taking a
position, and the above does that. It's saying that inbound agreements
are something else than open licenses, fulfill an unspecified need that
open licenses don't. That open licenses are meant to be
On 01/16/2015 08:02 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
The text is out-of-date, and wrong in some places.
OSI is in the process of a refresh on the whole site, updating or
removing a lot of old cruft, and this will get swept as part of it.
That's good to hear, thank you.
If OSI wants to discuss or
12:00 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs
Engel Nyst scripsit:
There is probably no way to make a statement like this without taking
a position, and the above does that. It's saying that inbound agreements
are something else than open licenses
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
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?
Well, for some licenses. The BSD licenses don't appear to require
any sort of acceptance: they just say We
On 01/17/2015 03:00 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Engel Nyst scripsit:
There is probably no way to make a statement like this without
taking a position, and the above does that. It's saying that
inbound agreements are something else than open licenses,
fulfill an unspecified need that open licenses
On 01/16/2015 05:48 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
I'd like to open a discussion about fixing this text.
The text is out-of-date, and wrong in some places.
OSI is in the process of a refresh on the whole site, updating or
removing a lot of old cruft, and this will get swept as part of it.
If OSI
On 01/16/2015 05:48 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
I'd like to open a discussion about fixing this text.
The text is out-of-date, and wrong in some places.
OSI is in the process of a refresh on the whole site, updating or
removing a lot of old cruft, and this will get swept as part of it.
If OSI
Hello license-discuss,
OSI FAQ page has an entry on CLAs: What are contributor license
agreements? Are they the same thing with open licenses?.
As a historical note, according to webarchive, the entry has appeared in
June-July 2013, although there is no mention on it on (public) mailing
lists at
22 matches
Mail list logo
