On 3 Apr 2014 00:59, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
Interesting point, though. I'd speculate that if the embedded
public license fallback inside CC0 is ever sent to OSI as a
stand-alone license, it would be approved. It is mighty similar
in effect to
Le 1 avr. 2014 à 22:44, Wilson, Andrew andrew.wil...@intel.com a écrit :
[…] at least in a legal system like the US where PD is recognized. […]
In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the effective
portion of CC0 is presumably not the PD declaration but the permissive
Luis Villa wrote:
Ø On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Wilson, Andrew
andrew.wil...@intel.commailto:andrew.wil...@intel.com wrote:
Ø with the distinctive feature that it explicitly disclaims patent licensing
Ø
Ø in the current legal climate, that is not a distinctive feature, it is a
Hello,
On 04/01/2014 10:44 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the effective
portion of CC0 is presumably not
the PD declaration but the permissive license. As other posters have noted,
that permissive license
is not perceptibly different
Kuno Woud wrote:
On 04/01/2014 10:44 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the
effective portion of CC0 is presumably not the PD declaration but the
permissive license. As other posters have noted, that permissive license is
not
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Wilson, Andrew andrew.wil...@intel.comwrote:
with the distinctive feature that it explicitly disclaims patent licensing
IMHO, in the current legal climate, that is not a distinctive feature, it
is a distinctive bug.
Luis
Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
Interesting point, though. I'd speculate that if the embedded
public license fallback inside CC0 is ever sent to OSI as a
stand-alone license, it would be approved. It is mighty similar
in effect to MIT/BSD/Apache, with the distinctive feature that it
explicitly
dual license
their work as e.g. both CC0 and MIT. It seems a lot of people don't
know about this option, and it makes for a good middle ground for
those that want public domain, but also want to be sure they're
covered by OSI's approval system.
Not clear to my non-lawyer mind how
and public domain dedication pop up all
the time on message boards. In the FAQ, it goes through why these
licenses are not currently OSI approved. I was wondering if you could
amend the FAQ to put forth the option that developers can dual license
their work as e.g. both CC0 and MIT. It seems a lot
dual license
their work as e.g. both CC0 and MIT. It seems a lot of people don't know
about this option, and it makes for a good middle ground for those that
want public domain, but also want to be sure they're covered by OSI's
approval system.
It's not clear what the advantages would be. CC0
odie5...@gmail.com writes:
Hi. I see questions about CC0 and public domain dedication pop up all the
time on message boards. In the FAQ, it goes through why these licenses are
not currently OSI approved. I was wondering if you could amend the FAQ to put
forth the option that developers can dual
1. I note without particular objection that your question is
off-topic
for this list. Like practically all other recent posts, it hasn't had
anything to do with OSI or examining candidate licence for
OSD-compliance.
If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
Why don't you have OSI appoint you
Quoting anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
We seem to have a quibbler among us.
Why don't you have OSI appoint you moderator?
Otherwise hop on over to Slashdot with the rest of
the obnoxious gamers and script-kiddies.
Oh wait: Correction, we seem to have a
I understood that he was helping me to find the right place to get an answer
to my question so all I can said is thanks for the suggestion and for the
answer.
- Original Message -
From: anon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Dual
Hi all,
One simple question ... If I have relased a dual licensed software product (GNU and
comercial license) can other GNU licensed software be added to my code base without
license issues?
Thanks
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Quoting J.M.Piulachs [Sand!] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One simple question ... If I have relased a dual licensed software
product (GNU and comercial license) can other GNU licensed software be
added to my code base without license issues?
1. I note without particular objection that your question
under the following dual license:
1. If you are an educational institution, you are granted to modify the
source code and distribute them to other educational institution (circa
like a BSD license).
2. If you are not an educational institution any derived work not be
public available
Hi *,
which
is going to do some software development as a government contract.
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
The software contractors might need to do some hand-holding for the gov.
agency
Here's your biggest problem, IMO:
(From the Open Source Definition
(http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html))
# 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
# The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
# 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
# The
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
I agree - and some Danish government agencies do, too. That's why this
project must be Open Source.
PS:
2. If you
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Feller, Joe wrote:
Here's your biggest problem, IMO:
# 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
# The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
# 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
I know. It's kind of interesting: you
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Kenneth Geisshirt wrote:
I think ALL Gov software -- since it is PAID for by PUBLIC funds -- and used
for a PUBLIC purpose, should be with PUBLIC licenses.
I agree - and some Danish government agencies do, too. That's why this
project must be Open Source.
The swedish
Kenneth Geisshirt said:
Sorry, typing error. The idea is to force non-educational to publish
derived work (substitute last not with must, please). GPL can do that, I
guess, but let us assume that I wish to be more liberal with educational
institution (they will never compete on the
Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
The swedish government is having a hard time to have limitations on
software they produce by first copyright, and then further by applying an
open source license on it. They're still investigating how an open source
license can be combined with swedish laws.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, John Cowan wrote:
The swedish government is having a hard time to have limitations on
software they produce by first copyright, and then further by applying an
open source license on it. They're still investigating how an open source
license can be combined with
Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
Well, both have a copyright notice.
True, but what the copyright notice takes away, the license gives back.
In the U.S., there is a legal requirement that what the Federal
government writes through its own employees (as opposed to what it pays
to have written for it)
26 matches
Mail list logo
