Hi Shahar.
You already got many answers, but none seem to be complete, so let me have
a go...
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine
> to CC0. I'm reluct
are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the
law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of
Defense or U.S. Government.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel
On Nov 07, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0
licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to
re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0.
What do yo
Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0
licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me
to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0.
What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they?
And what do you mean by "they
Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is a
free software license (as judged by the FSF).
It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under
one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in
this case
CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source
Code Policy.
https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction
https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on
, with CC0 a copyright holder abandons or quits
their interest without any further obligation, including without warranty.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#Does_using_CC0_affect_my_ability_to_disclaim_warranties.3F
License Text:
4.b Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no repre
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to
> CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved.
That’s a reasonable concern, imho.
> https://github.
On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote:
Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not
otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed?
When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license.
Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more
I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine
to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved.
https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28
Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not
otherwise depend on my software
Diane Peters dixit:
>"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication
AIUI (after several attempts at reading it) CC0 does not licence
the work but the right to act in the stead of the work’s author,
therefore allowing everyone to put any licence on it.
bye,
//m
"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication
is effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a
CD/DVD-ROM) and copies. If it is not, then the permissive license affects
only the copies it is attached to."
The final sentence is
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:13:23 -0700
> From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-rev...@opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re:
> For Approval: License Zero Reciproca
I've moved this to license-discuss because I'm not sure this is
part of discussion of any licence being evaluated, any more. I
could be wrong (and am certainly not criticising upthread posts).
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
> Again, OSI would be well-served by actually writing down the
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
> domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work
> itself that is placed in the public domain,
It's the former if you're using CC0. The work itself -- in whatever form
and whatever the number of copies -- is placed as nearly as possible in the
public domain. You could try to enforce a license on a particular copy, but
you can't enforce it as a matter of copyright and related rights
Thank you for your quick response!
Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work
itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce
copyright on any copies has been surrendered
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com>
wrote:.
>
> My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed
> the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a
> particular jurisdiction doesn't permit
.
As a special and limited exception, the copyright holders of the
MakeHuman assets grants the option to use CC0 1.0 Universal as
published by the Creative Commons, either version 1.0 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version, as a license for the
MakeHuman characters exported under
ttps://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<https://my.fsf.org/join>.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
line:
>
> /*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau 2012
> - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/
>
> However, the MIT license says this at https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>
> Copyright
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any pers
the licenses for them.
As an example:
We use a component called "jQDataRangeSlider"
The JavaScript file contained in our app contains this line:
/*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau
2012 - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/
However, the MIT license says thi
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:00 PM
> To: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org>
> Cc: license-discuss@open
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:10 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no
-issue because there aren’t any and open sourcing is much lower risk. All
contributions are done by USG employees or contractors. All the project looks
at are JIRA issues and determines if any warrant any internal action.
Regards,
Nigel
On 9/5/17, 9:12 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 11:28 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
&
ith
whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Ben Hilburn
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 2:06 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:22 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyf
/do-not-need-cla/
Have you seen something different at ARL? How have you worked things to be
successful with your F/OSS projects and external groups? I'm really
interested to learn more about your approach and the results you've seen.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jh
nkerizer.
--Peter da Silva
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
desktop apps were largely replaced by
webapps. You can do cathedral development and release via a GOSS license
(NOSA) and still provide significant value to the user community.
With an OSS license release I can “clone and own” moving forward and accept
upstream changes as desired even
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 8:26 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: N
, but unlike before, there would be no non-government
contribution's copyright to piggyback off of.
--
Maj Tom Bereknyei
Defense Digital Service
t...@dds.mil
(571) 225-1630
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https
ing
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: N
Hi list,
during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that
it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead
of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and
allows for a _lot_ of possibilities.
Of course…
>Making CC0 + a patent rele
an
OSI-approved license of some type. To get a better sense of what I'm talking
about, clone
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
and checkout the 'develop' branch. The reason for doing it this way is to
ensure that the license for a chunk of code
t; concern.
> Licensing Intent
>
> The intent is that this software and documentation ("Project") should be
treated as if it is licensed under the license associated with the Project
("License") in the LICENSE.md file. However, because we are part of the
United States (U.S.) Fe
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyf
their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval thing.
From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>>
Date: Tuesday, Aug 29, 2017, 11:25 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-disc
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-dis
directly do things like this regardless of how
well drafted a license may become.
A consistent USG-wide policy is needed. Using licenses rooted in copyright law
doesn't seem right when applied to the government itself and is part of the
continuing issues in finding an appropriate pre-existing
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris Travers
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:14 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyf
I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open
Source license for the purposes of open source release on Code.gov the CC0
train has already left the station without OSI approval.
The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL
compatible.
CC
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
>> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
>> Sent: Monday, August 2
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM
> To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject:
age-
> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana
> <font...@sharpeleven.org>
> Cc: license-dis
using Greylisting
and not whitelisting their ranges). Same for a few other providers such
as Hotmail. Some spammers (Yahoo) I do block.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ight;
but the Dead followed them. --"The Passing of the Grey Company"
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ke done by someone who knows what they are doing
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
cle 18 of the Berne Convention — there would be
expiry internationally in the country of origin, thus public domain
internationally. On the other end of the spectrum, Title 17 could be changed
to remove the exemption of USG works, the implications there would be utterly
HUGE, but would allow the USG
ilto:font...@sharpeleven.org]
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM
>> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
><cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
>> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US
>Government
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source]
stricting rights through other means.
The interesting question (to me) is what happens when an agency uses contract
law to restrict a right the copyright act specifically covers. For example,
attribution. To date, the answer has been “nothing".
The FAQ does imply that some license is nee
er Open Source would not have a notice of copyright affixed to the
> software. However, would software pushed out under an Open Source license
> that
> assumes the existence of copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of
> copyright and therefore an actionable fraud under this sectio
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyf
t happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
_______
License-discuss mailing lis
be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. [Note - Any software pushed
out under Open Source would not have a notice of copyright affixed to the
software. However, would software pushed out under an Open Source license that
assumes the existence of copyright be considered tantamount to a notic
ping
And to Richard Fontana... **PING**
Thanks,
Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
for
a not for profit with no mechanism for charging fees.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Hello all,
maybe this question is far to generic. But in the moment I do not
have any more information.
Is the old Sun
Identity Manager (Oralce Waveset) product Open Source compliant
with the Open Source license terms and conditions
didn't I mount it on a troff?" --Francis Turner
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
contributions have been assigned to the
original owner.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
s that this is allowed, but I wanted to check with this list
that my understanding is correct. :-)
--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site, http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______
General Public License as
* published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
* License, or (at your option) any later version.
==
Some files are licenced under the Lesser GPL, with the same type of terms
saying that one can use a later version.
My question is: Does this mean that I
s free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> * License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ==
> Some files are licenced under the
Hi.
I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip
The code licence is stated as follows:
==
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
* published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
What is the current progress on the NOSA 2.0 license? I just got out of a
meeting with some NASA lawyers, and they want to know where it's going, and if
it's stuck, why it's stuck.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017762.html
Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions
Date: Mon Apr 30 17:25:11 UTC 2012
[2]:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2002-June/005443.html
Subject: Academic Free License
Date: Thu Jun 27 1
number of To: and Cc: recipients in
part because of cross-posting across multiple mailing lists. Which gets
us back to Simon's point.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
tructor discipline a la Haskell).
--
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. --Gerald Holton
_______
License-discu
source technology for discussion
lists!
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Rick Moen
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:03 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Quot
orts. (My apologies for
mistyping your surname, by the way.)
(Yes, BTW, I am a fellow listadmin. ;-> )
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org):
> I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does
> most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small
> interactive main program which provides the command line. This main
> program is provided in two ve
t; quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
> the admin queue.
>
> license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
> default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration. So, I
> strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and
quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
the admin queue.
license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration. So, I
strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and John, and Henrik, do _not_
the people CC'd and interested in the thread were not
subscribed to license-discuss@.
I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? Or John
Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's?
I also moderate an opensource.org mailing list. What a drag to discard or
ignore spam every day! But we try
ing its
way out to mailer authors. Perhaps via Pony Express. ;->
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6378773/correct-email-headers-for-delivering-mailing-list-mail
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.open
), and my experience is that the
happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding.
--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site, http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______
Licens
I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an
anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid
cross-posting to avoid this.
Thanks,
Simon
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to
license-discuss.
In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion
that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and,
secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software
ommensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensou
's not the topic here.
This drop-in alternative is valid even for the open source election software
that Brent Turner is concerned about. If someone releases such software under a
more restrictive license (such as the FreeAndFair or the OSET licenses),
copyright law allows a BSD or
at reasoning again I can
> not figure out why they would be opting for license other than GPL
>
I can only speculate. But looked at with a lawyerly eye that isn't used to
the wonderful world of free software licensing, the GPL looks *weird*.
Where's the consideration? Where are the restricti
the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small
interactive main program which provides the command line. This main
program is provided in two versions. One works with GNU readline and is
GPLed; the other does not provide line editing and is under the same
permissive license as th
he more generous offer of
> software!
I'm not sure if you meant this to go to the public license-discuss list.
Some people are ideologues who refuse to have anything to do with software
under one or another license. Offering multiple licenses is a strategy
(misguided, in my opinion) to satis
then dropped the GPL license, after assurances
that MIT is considered to be GPL compatible.)
henrik
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your
> license questions.
>
>
>
&
ong as it has
a door sticker saying "No information items inside". --Eve Maler
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
gewohnheitsmäßig ("Oooohhh"). [aus dasr]
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
easing software as open source
and running or contributing to open source projects since the late 1980s.
I have given public talks on OSS, software patents, and much more in my
many years of being an academic and an entrepreneur. Thus, I have deep
knowledge of these topics.
> Let's talk license fear fa
Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your
license questions.
I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a
commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing strategies
for a licensor that makes sense to me
hen the Licensor (as
defined below) has placed the following
notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Work:
Licensed under the EUPL
or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL.
1.Definitions
In this Licen
notice for the Work:
Licensed under the EUPL
or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL.
1.Definitions
In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning:
— ‘The Licence’:this Licence.
— ‘The Original Work’:the work or so
zeng, Nigel H CTR (US) <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] patents & interoperability
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of
and are close to the license text you want to have, especially
the very last one.
The first sentence of the page states that :
" There are many MIT variants, all of which are functionally
identical.".
Based on that, I conclude that there is no issue with your license tex
and are close to the license text you want to have, especially
the very last one.
The first sentence of the page states that :
" There are many MIT variants, all of which are functionally
identical.".
Based on that, I conclude that there is no issue with your license tex
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote:
> What's the "right" level to scan at? Top-level project-declared LICENSE
> file? Or per-file throughout the tree? (Note that often those two measures
> don't agree with each other.)
MO is that the right lev
1 - 100 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
