On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
[...]
>> If the license dissuades people that you would like to have using your
>> software, it is also defective.
>>
>> Licenses have multiple potential failure modes. Not all of which
>> happen in a court
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> > Can you name a single reason why this utterly bizarre question has any
> > connection whatsover to anything I've said? It doesn't.
>
> Yes I can. And I can tell you why it's not so bizarre.
It has no discernable connection whatsoever to anythi
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
>
>> Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal
>> copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software
>> or other practical tools (printer cartridges, g
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
> > Mu. The premise is defective.
>
> Really?
No, just kidding.
Or: I was hoping you would argue, as it's much fun.
> If the license dissuades people that you would like to have using your
> software, it is also defective.
>
> Licenses have multiple pot
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal
> copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software
> or other practical tools (printer cartridges, garage door openers,
> etc), that this gives the copyright
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
[...]
>> If a license does what I want 90% of the time quite well, and fails
>> 10% of the time, is it better or worse than a license that does
>> something you find merely OK 100% of the time?
>
> Mu. The p
Rick:
Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal
copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software
or other practical tools (printer cartridges, garage door openers,
etc), that this gives the copyright owner control over the markets for
add-on product
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> For example, suppose I start selling a binary-only table engine for
> MySQL which offers real benefits over Innodb. Let's say less bloat,
> less maintenance, faster performance, and no issues with thread
> deadlocks when multi-row inserts are done
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
> can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
> perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
> all of the implications of an
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
> Seeing these repeated references to my name is getting annoying.
This seems a little odd. All I said was that I'd recently made that
observation to you -- which was factually correct and certainly not
any offence to you or anyone else.
> You like to t
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> These are generally exceptional cases that require either copyright
> assignment or carefully controlled maintenance of contribution records
> and continued contact with contributors. In cases where contributions to
> the downstream copyleft
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> Kindly don't tell me what I've read over the years.
I'm more than done with this.
Not very surprisingly, attempting to post a serious answer to your
rhetorical question ('What was the value of this observation?') was
simply a waste of time, a
On 6/11/12 6:31 PM, "Rick Moen" wrote:
>The language about a 'fixed pool of open source developers' is
>revealing: One notes the assumption of entitlement to mindshare.
>Perhaps the easiest solution would be to regard copyleft as a
>subcategory of proprietary development. Then it'd suddenly bec
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 03:20:12PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
>
> > Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
> > are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
>
> No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
>
>> Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
>> are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
>
> No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not confuse
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 03:31:56PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> > On 6/11/12 3:54 PM, "Chad Perrin" wrote:
> > >
> > >Rather, I think the complaint is about people making hypocritical
> > >statements about exactly the kind of behavior they exhibit w
On 6/11/12 6:20 PM, "Rick Moen" wrote:
>Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
>
>> Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
>> are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
>
>No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not confuse me with som
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> On 6/11/12 3:54 PM, "Chad Perrin" wrote:
>
> >Rather, I think the complaint is about people making hypocritical
> >statements about exactly the kind of behavior they exhibit with regard to
> >source code appropriation
Oddly enough, in the
On 6/11/12 3:54 PM, "Chad Perrin" wrote:
>Rather, I think the complaint is about people making hypocritical
>statements about exactly the kind of behavior they exhibit with regard to
>source code appropriation, and about people pretending there is no
>difference between two different edge cases o
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
> are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not confuse me with some
bunch of ideologue wankers.
> What was the
On 6/11/12 3:39 PM, "Rick Moen" wrote:
>Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
>
>> >I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
>>
>> This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp
>>and
>> certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
> can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
> perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
> all of the implicatio
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> >I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
>
> This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and
> certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you wish to identify yourself as.
I am not a member
On 6/8/12 12:16 PM, "Rick Moen" wrote:
>Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
>
>> It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still
>> professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a
>> difference between the two practices. Go figure.
>
>I am n
On 6/8/12 2:15 PM, "Bruce Perens" wrote:
>On 06/08/2012 08:55 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents [...]
>Not a positive contribution.
In what matter was Rick's original comment a positive contribution?
>There are simple economic justifications f
dge
other licenses by the same criteria?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:06 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize
the OSI licensing pag
On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> 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 inclu
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 08:18:16PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
>
> [...]
> > However if someone downstream re-releases under a copyleft license,
> > there is essentially no chance of changes downstream of that ever
> > being re-released under a permissive licens
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> It's regarding your statement:
>
>it doesn't seem likely to cast light on other areas of copyright
>law. In particular, it cases none on what suffices to create a new
>work and what is a derivative work.
>
> The point is that there's not /a
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it does
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the API
> is not itself copyrightable?
>
>
If there was a case like MySQL v. Nusphere without the contract, this
is what I'd argue. Note I'd avoid saying "derivative" like th
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if
> the API is not itself copyrightable?
{scratches head}
I think you must somehow be massively misreading what I said. Perhaps
you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API (someho
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>>
>> To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather they
>> embedded closed source components into MySQL
>
> Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API
What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the
API is not itself copyrightable?
On 06/11/2012 12:37 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
I belive I heard that his holding is that
Google wrote or commissioned independent code implementations of all
37, leaving only the question of whethe
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a coup
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> >I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You
> >even said 'Read caselaw.'
>
> I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible
> for GPL software to be embedded within
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>>
>> I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You even
>> said 'Read caselaw.'
>
>
> I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for GPL
> software to be
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You
even said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for
GPL software to be embedded within a proprietary software product a la
NuSphere withou
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
> right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between
> separate works and that connections across APIs do not create
> derivative works. And this is regardless of the way softw
On 06/09/2012 01:53 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Read caselaw. I'm done.
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between separate
works and that connections across APIs do not create derivative works.
And this is regardl
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:09:47PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Chad Perrin scripsit:
> >
> >> Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really
> >> a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a
> >>
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Not exclusively. I cited cases (Lexmark, Sony, etc) where expressive
> elements were included without permission but this was held to be de
> minimis (Lexmark) or fair use (Sony, Galoob), or allowed on other
> grounds.
Yes, affirmative defences a
Just one point in support of Rick's assertion here.
My points as I stated I think clearly, are under the assumption that a
court would look at the GPL v2 and try to map it directly to
compiled/collected works (license allows without regard to license of
other components) and derivative works (requ
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
>
>> Nowhere in these do I see any indication that mere inclusion of one
>> work in another creates derivation.
>
> You will not find a simple acid test there or anywhere else. And yet,
> in my exp
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Nowhere in these do I see any indication that mere inclusion of one
> work in another creates derivation.
You will not find a simple acid test there or anywhere else. And yet,
in my experience, if you read those cases, you will get the pattern of
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>> True, which is why I have sought out law review articles and case law.
>> I would think that a case like MySQL v. Nusphere if it came up today
>> would still be a case of first impression, would it not? I haven't
>> yet found a case directly o
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
[...]
> However if someone downstream re-releases under a copyleft license,
> there is essentially no chance of changes downstream of that ever
> being re-released under a permissive license that can be reintegrated
> back into the original project.
To be del
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> I don't think so. When we look at the case where this was raised as a
> controversy (a wireless driver in Linux taken from, iirc OpenBSD), the
> allegation was actually that no derivative work was created. The code
> was just included wholesale a
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
>
>> Maybe I misunderstood what Larry Rosen was saying about the
>> differences in the BSD and MIT licenses in his book then ;-).
>
> Oh, there is.
>
> The alleged '{relicensing|sublicensing} of BSD
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> On 06/08/2012 08:55 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> >It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents [...]
> Not a positive contribution.
Factually mistaken premise, too.
> There are simple economic justifications for using a
> sharing-with-rules li
Chris Travers scripsit:
> Not necessarily. I don't see why one can't license some rights
> exclusively to one party and other rights exclusively to another
> party.
That's true. Most recent discussion uses the term "transfer of copyright",
which may apply to some rights only. The point is that
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
[...]
> My surmise is that the thing being referred to as '{sublicensing|relicensing}
> of BSD works' is in fact stating the licensing for a derivative.
>
> A certain number of the BSD regulars remain d
On 06/08/2012 08:55 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents [...]
Not a positive contribution.
There are simple economic justifications for using a sharing-with-rules
license or a gift-style license. One determines the desired result, and
then one or
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
> It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still
> professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a
> difference between the two practices. Go figure.
I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL pro
It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still
professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a
difference between the two practices. Go figure.
Perhaps because a proprietary derivative doesn't impact the potential pool
of open source contributors but a GP
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Maybe I misunderstood what Larry Rosen was saying about the
> differences in the BSD and MIT licenses in his book then ;-).
Oh, there is.
The alleged '{relicensing|sublicensing} of BSD code', however,
inevitably turns out in the real world to be
Quoting Chuck Swiger (ch...@codefab.com):
> What is a matter of concern is when someone removes a copyright statement
> and the BSD license terms from source code
Obviously both abhorrent and illegal, irrespective of anything that follows.
> I'm thinking of the g4u vs g4l situation.
You may
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Chris Travers scripsit:
>
>> I am not 100% sure but I think after the changes in 2010, exclusive
>> licensees are now assumed to have sublicense rights as well.
>
> An exclusive license is really a transfer of copyright ownership, and the
> enti
Chris Travers scripsit:
> I am not 100% sure but I think after the changes in 2010, exclusive
> licensees are now assumed to have sublicense rights as well.
An exclusive license is really a transfer of copyright ownership, and the
entire bundle of rights (including the right to say what the lic
On Jun 7, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> My surmise is that the thing being referred to as '{sublicensing|relicensing}
> of BSD works' is in fact stating the licensing for a derivative.
Probably. My own opinion is that folks who do anything less than a substantial
rewrite of software ought
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Rick Moen scripsit:
>
>> I keep hearing a limited group of people speaking of this alleged tort
>> ('purporting to sublicense'), but fail to find it in copyright law.
>
> Is there actually such a thing as copyright sublicensing? I suspect not.
>
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
> Is there actually such a thing as copyright sublicensing? I suspect not.
> In which case "purporting to sublicense" an unchanged copy of a work
> is usurping the copyright owner's right to control the license, and
> likewise for a copy whose changes
Rick Moen scripsit:
> I keep hearing a limited group of people speaking of this alleged tort
> ('purporting to sublicense'), but fail to find it in copyright law.
Is there actually such a thing as copyright sublicensing? I suspect not.
In which case "purporting to sublicense" an unchanged copy
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Therefore, I think that lawsuits will more likely occur regarding the
> scope of requirements of the license than excusing one from the
> requirements directly
So, basically, 'Yes, this licence articulates the licensor's
requirements, and he/s
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Chad Perrin scripsit:
>
>> Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really
>> a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a
>> requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OS
Chad Perrin scripsit:
> Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really
> a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a
> requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OSI?
Clearly the latter. The text should be adjusted acco
Just chiming in... I am also 1000% behind this. Looks like a great move
forward.
Karl Fogel writes:
> I completely support this, and am very happy to have it supersede my
> original proposed new page -- this way is better, both in the short term
> and the long term. Thanks for the well-explain
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
>
>> That assumes the goal is to invalidate a license's grant of rights.
>
> Shortly below what you quoted:
>
> There are of course other parties who might sue (other than a licensee),
> and other
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> That assumes the goal is to invalidate a license's grant of rights.
Shortly below what you quoted:
There are of course other parties who might sue (other than a licensee),
and other matters that might be asserted.
> Far more likely, I wo
I'll try to avoid the minor tempest about the list that has nothing to do
with the proposal for a new format for a landing page, and just ask a
question:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> Open Source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source
> Defini
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> And why in particular might litigation be dumb? Consider permissive
> licences, for example. A licensee suing to invalidate such a licence's
> grant of rights would achieve... having fewer rights. I.e., licensee
> would have some implied right
Rick,
I suggested that metric to tease Larry. He's been vociferous about the
GPL and its enforcement previously.
You bring up the issue of court tests, though. It's not really the
licenses that need testing, but some of the assumptions upon which they
are built. So, Jacobsen v. Katzer was us
I wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
>
> > On 06/04/2012 09:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > >Get rid of any indication that "popularity" [1] has anything to do
> > >with legal viability.
> > Yes. Let's instead rank the legal viability of licenses according to
> > which ones have b
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
e-----
>From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 8:24 AM
>To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
>Cc: Luis Villa
>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly
>reorganize the OSI licensing pages
>
>
>
>"Lawrence Rosen" writ
On 06/05/2012 09:22 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
[I’ll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval
in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it
should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the
list of OSI-approved licenses” as “po
ith cronyism, misinformation, and
unnecessary politics. Not good at all
/Larry
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Karl Fogel <mailto:[mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]>
[mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:14 PM
>
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Perens [mailto:br...@perens.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:24 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> On 06/04/2012 09:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >Get rid of any indication that "popularity" [1] has anything to do
> >with legal viability.
> Yes. Let's instead rank the legal viability of licenses according to
> which ones have been enforced successfull
1242
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@tieguy.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:02 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize
the OSI licensing pages
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:36
On 06/04/2012 09:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Get rid of any indication that "popularity" [1] has anything to do
with legal viability.
Yes. Let's instead rank the legal viability of licenses according to
which ones have been enforced successfully the most times. You have no
problem with that, d
Hi--
On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Luis Villa writes:
>> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or
>> have strong communities:
>
> As long as that list remains, I will object. It is inaccurate, incomplete,
> misleading, subject to cronyism and personal
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Luis Villa writes:
>> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or
>> have strong communities:
>
> As long as that list remains, I will object. It is inaccurate, incomplete,
> misleading, subject to cronyism and personal bi
y.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:17 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize
the OSI licensing pages
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or
> have s
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or
> have strong communities:
>
> Apache License, 2.0 (Apache-2.0)
> BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license (BSD-3-Clause)
> BSD 3-Clause "Simplified" or "Free
I completely support this, and am very happy to have it supersede my
original proposed new page -- this way is better, both in the short term
and the long term. Thanks for the well-explained proposal, Luis.
I especially like the second item under Miscellany, by the way :-).
That will make mainten
Hi, all-
Following up on Karl's email of a few months ago, this is a
deliberately low-key proposal from me and other board members to
simplify and improve how the OSI-approved licenses are presented on
the OSI website. As it currently stands, we don't have a page we can
point a newcomer to to lear
88 matches
Mail list logo
