Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
> I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus,
> wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me,
> that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party
> withdrew the submission.
You're
On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
wrote:
>If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent
>language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that.
>
>Richard
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
ot;lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>"
<lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
Cc: License Discuss
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On Mon, Dec
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 are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets
the definition of open source.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
>
>> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
>> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
>
> As someone who was part of that
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
accurately summarise its substance: We were in
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...@
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent
> licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me.
>
Agreed. I only mentioned this hypo to defend my claim that if MIT
John, my responses below. This is not legal advice! :-) /Larry
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:58 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen 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 copyrighted work.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 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 just wanted to catch this email client
ss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of John Cowan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:29 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com
<mailto:s
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not
> identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there.
>
I don't, but it was on one of the OSI mailing lists during the discussion
of the Brode
are copyrights.
/Larry
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:19 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On Mon
On 12/12/2016 10:05 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
>> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
>
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, John Cowan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
that the BSD license is also a patent license.
MIT is on record as saying that the MIT
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo
wrote:
Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
>
MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
equivalent to the 2-clause
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
> wrote:
>>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that
>
> So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested,
> redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat. _And_ all
> of the software is open source.
>
>
Case in point, CentOS did it for *years* before RH started sponsoring them.
JD
>
>
One observation on this whole topic.
The OSD is a checklist for evaluating licenses as open source, rather than
a guide to the available freedoms of the software to which it is applied,
even if in most cases those are close to the same thing.
To Larry's raising of OSD 7: it has to be taken in
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
> 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
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
il.com>
> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM
> To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi" <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>
> Subject: Re: [License-dis
urce.org> >
Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> "
<henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> >
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any
k.i...@avoinelama.fi<mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any license
of any kind.
The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the inability
to continue
Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any
license of any kind.
The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the
inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent
infringement is a "price". However you are unable to use the
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:01 PM
To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On 12/6/16, 3:33
On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
wrote:
>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking
>an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate
>file
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Henrik Ingo
wrote:
Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent
> grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD.
>
Inevitably so, since the BSD license family either grants no patent rights
(if you read it
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
> henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana
On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana
>wrote:
>> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of
> software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent
> license grants or nonasserts? (This has been done by some other
>
On 2016-12-02 6:26, Richard Fontana wrote
> does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise
> OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not
> be considered open source?
I argued here that the scope of the patent termination provision is
inconsistent with the
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":
Personally, I am conflicted with the idea of exact conditions
and requirements of a LICENSE not being fully specified in
the LICENSE itself. It almost seems like a way to "get around"
at least OSI approval, plus it adds (IMO) confusion. It is
quite possible to have an OSI approved licensed s/w
Interesting, I hadn’t heard about the React licensing yet. Thanks.
> The 'Additional Grant' has attracted a fair amount of criticism (as
> did an earlier version which apparently resulted in some revisions by
> Facebook). There was a recent blog post by Robert Pierce of El Camino
> Legal [3]
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
38 matches
Mail list logo