ly open source. The ideal
>> > solution is not to have them remove the words "open source" from their
>> > self-description, but rather for their software to be under an
>> > OSI-approved open source license
>>
>> I have not looked at the TrueCrypt
any
>time or effort on the TrueCrypt license unless the TrueCrypt copyright
>holder brings it forward themselves with a willingness to address these
>issues in a serious and reasonable fashion.
>
>The fact that there are other FOSS implementations for TrueCrypt (most
>notabl
deal
> > solution is not to have them remove the words "open source" from their
> > self-description, but rather for their software to be under an
> > OSI-approved open source license
>
> I have not looked at the TrueCrypt license (in depth) in quite some
> ti
On 10/14/2013 09:32 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Obviously, I'd like to see TrueCrypt be truly open source. The ideal
> solution is not to have them remove the words "open source" from their
> self-description, but rather for their software to be under an
> OSI-approved open
http://truecrypt.com/ advertises itself as "free open-source disk
encryption software". However, the license is not OSI-approved:
http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license
Does anyone know of any history of consideration or discussion about
this license, at the OSI, FSF, or elsewher
First of all, and to be completely clear about this, our point is not to
make money with our project...
Let's start from another point of view.
On http://qt-project.org/downloads , we can read :
"Qt is available under GPL v3, LGPL v2 and a commercial license".
Can we investigat
l,
market products sold to utilities, etc.).
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Harmony.org framework) assigning
the distribution rights to a leading organisation and allowing this
organisation to distribute the software under license X.
However if this distribution licence X is OSD compliant (GPL, LGPL or any
other), you cannot try to restrict redistribution (or try to practice a
Qt is available under GPL v3, LGPL v2 and a commercial license".
>
> Can we investigate this approach a bit further...
> Indeed, it may be a good one for us. We may make our source code
> available to the public through a LGPL license, with a way to work
> with companies thro
On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:54:41 +0200
Quentin Lefebvre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently working on an open source project, we are looking for an
> appropriate license for it.
>
> We would like something that allows us to work with people in a way
> such that :
> - we can be i
Hi,
Currently working on an open source project, we are looking for an
appropriate license for it.
We would like something that allows us to work with people in a way such
that :
- we can be informed of modifications of our program by developers,
- we can have "our word to say&q
I have not had time to do this myself but it is probably a reasonable idea.
Luis
On Sep 19, 2013 7:40 PM, "Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
> It seems that at least a few OSI directors seem think System 76's
> BeanBooks Public License may be at least a bit problematic under OSD
Ken Arromdee scripsit:
> >4.3 - Commercial distribution of the Software requires a
> > trademark license agreement and you may be required to
> >pay. Using the Software within a corporation or entity is not
> >considered commercial distrib
(including thread below for reference)
Hi All,
Version 1.19 of the SPDX License List was released a couple weeks ago and
includes the changes regarding the Artistic License as discussed below. That
is, there are now three variations of Artistic License v1.10 on the SPDX
License LIst, as
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Alec Taylor wrote:
> I am building a set of generalised libraries and frameworks.
>
> Would like to open-source it all; however in the cases where a client
> wants their custom stuff under a non open-source license; I should have
> provisions
N GROUPS OF THREE OR MORE.
r...@linuxmafia.com -- @EditorHulk
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
velop quickly in part through
competition with the proprietary forks. This is one of the things we tried
hard to replicate in LedgerSMB.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
arS (started at 1996)
> and it's easier to just say price than trying to explain how this
> development was financed. Because either there were non-paid just-for-fun
> programmers at work who may turn away at any time or the professional
> services have to pay the bills.
>
A few thoughts, assuming you are open to open source perspectives by asking
here ;-)
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Pirmin Braun wrote:
> currently our "IntarS" ERP Software is released under GPL. But we want to
> be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial use
self; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore ne
Alec Taylor scripsit:
> I am building a set of generalised libraries and frameworks.
>
> Would like to open-source it all; however in the cases where a client wants
> their custom stuff under a non open-source license; I should have
> provisions for such a case.
As long as it&#
hat argument.
Thanks,
BC
--
Ben Cotton
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Dear Alec
Any license has to satisfy two persons' need, your client and you.
Presuming you are still building and you are able to isolate the custom
stuff, say into aplugin, the strongest protection for Open Source in this
scenario will be GPL with exceptions made for the plugins that m
ch says it will not go for-profit. That does
not offer full protection, but it is the best I can get.
Bye
cinly
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
- IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH - Am Hofbräuhaus 1 - 96450
Coburg
+49 2642 40526292 +49 174 9747584 - skype:pirminb www.intars.de p...@intars.de
Geschäftsführer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Coburg HRB3136
_______
Licens
omical metrics is not discrimination.
--
Pirmin Braun - IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH - Am Hofbräuhaus 1 - 96450
Coburg
+49 2642 40526292 +49 174 9747584 - skype:pirminb www.intars.de p...@intars.de
Geschäftsführer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Coburg HR
I am building a set of generalised libraries and frameworks.
Would like to open-source it all; however in the cases where a client wants
their custom stuff under a non open-source license; I should have
provisions for such a case.
So what are my best options? - Currently looking at BSD/MIT and
rinks your beer.
> Taking money from a user who benefits from using the software shouldn't be
> considered a restriction of use.
>
> Finally "discrimination": Distinguishing users by their income or revenue
> or other appropriate economical metrics is not discrimination.
>
> --
rs of programming in IntarS (started at 1996)
> and it's easier to just say price than trying to explain how this
> development was financed. Because either there were non-paid just-for-fun
> programmers at work who may turn away at any time or the professional
> services have
ere non-paid just-for-fun programmers at work who may
turn away at any time or the professional services have to pay the bills.
Taking license fees just gives more credibility and trust.
Then have you ever thought about the allowed means of making money from Open
Source? Like selling copies? Strictly
source code, or at least you do if had the foresight to take a copy,
so you can still get any competent programmer to maintain it for you.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman
On Friday 20. September 2013 23.18, Pirmin Braun wrote:
> > I assume you know that you can sell your software even though you use
> > the GPL or other Open Source License.
>
> yes. But anyone can give it free away as soon as he's got a copy. Also it's
> freely
ther there were non-paid just-for-fun programmers at work who may
turn away at any time or the professional services have to pay the bills.
Taking license fees just gives more credibility and trust.
Then have you ever thought about the allowed means of making money from Open
Source? Like sel
Am Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:56:17 +0100
schrieb Cinly Ooi :
> -1
>
> Violation of
> 1. Free Redistribution5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No
> Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (may be)
> Although you are not asking, you can always free to put on any
Am Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:40:52 +
schrieb Jonathon :
> On 09/19/2013 05:17 PM, Pirmin Braun wrote:
> > But we want to be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users.
>
> I assume you _know_ that you can sell your software even though you use
> the GPL or other O
Karl Fogel scripsit:
> It's not clear what "include a pointer" means legally. Is the reference
> in the LICENSE file enough, or do they mean a hyperlink? A hyperlink
> that is shown somewhere in the UI where such information is customarily
> shown?
The reference is
sadvantage the millionaire is as unethical as to
disadvantage the poor.
> Or at least coin a name for this sort of license?
Feel free, but don't expect any of us to help much.
--
Let's face it: software is crap. Feature-laden and bloated, written under
tremendous time-pressure
-1
Violation of
1. Free Redistribution5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No
Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (may be)
Although you are not asking, you can always free to put on any license term
you choose. But if you want OSI blessing, please play by the rule.
What you
On 09/19/2013 05:17 PM, Pirmin Braun wrote:
> But we want to be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users.
I assume you _know_ that you can sell your software even though you use
the GPL or other Open Source License.
> That's not possible with GPL or any other OSI appro
currently our "IntarS" ERP Software is released under GPL. But we want to be
able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users.
That's not possible with GPL or any other OSI approved license since it is a
restriction to free use.
Since we neither want to dual license nor
John Cowan writes:
>I don't think it is. Clauses 1 and 2 (as usual for BSD) require that the
>license itself be preserved by downstream distributors. That license
>already includes the pointer required by clause 4 -- in the text of
>clause 4 itself. So clause 4 is self-sa
in the software and not removed by a downstream licensee.
In this case, however, Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the
protected trademark. Taking the two clauses together, you are
effectively
prevented from making commercial use of the software without paying for
the trademark license
ource, and almost are, but they're using a
> > custom license based on 3-clause BSD with an extra clause -- clause
> > (4) -- that IMHO is problematic. I've attached the license to this
> > mail.
>
> I don't think it is. Clauses 1 and 2 (as usual for BSD) require t
It seems that at least a few OSI directors seem think System 76's
BeanBooks Public License may be at least a bit problematic under OSD
(or, at least, has other perhaps-OSD-orthogonal policy problems, like
the baked-in CLA). I thus strongly recommend that someone who is able
to speak offic
Karl Fogel scripsit:
> Just in case anyone else noticed this:
>
> https://www.cra.com/commercial-solutions/probabilistic-modeling-services.asp
>
> They want to be open source, and almost are, but they're using a custom
> license based on 3-clause BSD with an ex
Just in case anyone else noticed this:
https://www.cra.com/commercial-solutions/probabilistic-modeling-services.asp
They want to be open source, and almost are, but they're using a custom
license based on 3-clause BSD with an extra clause -- clause (4) -- that
IMHO is problematic.
downstream licensee.
In this case, however, Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the
protected trademark. Taking the two clauses together, you are effectively
prevented from making commercial use of the software without paying for
the trademark license, which obviously contravenes clauses 6 and 7 of
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:06:31 -0400
Richard Fontana wrote:
> "Submit" is susceptible to a broad reading that would give System76 a
> privileged license relative to everyone else (somewhat like the old
> NPL).
Re-reading this, I may not have been sufficiently clear. Sect
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:50:29 -0700
Luis Villa wrote:
> I just wanted to raise this thread again; I'm interested in
> discussion/comment from others but have had only the barest time to
> skim.
(Same here.)
> Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked i
Luis Villa scripsit:
> Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into
> the license. Not non-free/open, per se, at least at first glance -
> just... odd?
Section 3 as a whole is a CLA; it only applies to you if you make
a Contribution, which requires that you su
e OSD).
And to be clear on this point, if it doesn't violate the letter of the
OSD, that may be an argument for clarifying the letter of the OSD -
possibly something long overdue on trademarks.
Luis
___________
License-discuss mailing lis
I just wanted to raise this thread again; I'm interested in
discussion/comment from others but have had only the barest time to
skim.
Sec. 3.3 strikes me as odd; essentially a very strong CLA baked into
the license. Not non-free/open, per se, at least at first glance -
just... odd?
Sec
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> > In any case, I am speaking here of literal copying only.
>
> In that case, what's the problem you're hypothesizing? Every FOSS
> license permits literal copying, and no FOSS license imposes a
> copyleft obligation on any *other* work ju
John Cowan wrote:
> In any case, I am speaking here of literal copying only.
In that case, what's the problem you're hypothesizing? Every FOSS license
permits literal copying, and no FOSS license imposes a copyleft obligation
on any *other* work just because of making literal copie
ot with linking.
> I'll apply copyright law only when Bob or Alice make their software
> prettier.
Bah.
--
Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan
--Golda Meir co...@ccil.org
______
of European copyright law: yes. From the perspective of
GPLv2: probably not (because of the wording of sec. 2 GPLv2).
Best,
Till
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
can
prevent the making of copies, derivative works, collective works, or
compilations of their own expressions -- again to their heart's content. And
they can choose to license those things.
That is true regardless of whether what Bob and Alice create is a derivative
or a collective work. Copyr
ich hath happened http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
betwixt us. --Thomas Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
d relating to the expressive
content of her work or she may be sanctioned by the court for filing a
frivolous lawsuit.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:05 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
a way of life. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Joseph Zitt
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
"Well, I'm back." --SamJohn Cowan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> As I mentioned in a private thread, I didn't really see the need to
> burn Till's time posting here, since the discussion was a side-issue
> on the main thread about license compatibility, and an OSI director
>
order to ensure that software is
interoperable? Or really merging their code with the existing one? Depending on
the case, solution will differ, but the need for simplifying (or just making
legally possible) distribution is there. Cases are indeed multiple, and these
developers want to license u
onents. That's a business and social good. They are entitled to choose
their own license for their collective works or compilations.
I don't care a fig for the claims of GPL licensors that everything that
touches their code must be under the GPL, although please don't accuse me of
try
e" in the copyright sense? Does a
staple or a paper clip or a book binding convert separate works to something
not separate in the copyright sense?
You refer to a "binary blob." That is an interesting phrase which has no
analogue in copyright law. How would a European lawyer
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT):
> Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European
> administrations and Member states) have build applications from
> multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a
> single license for distributi
CABLE LAW THEN USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IS
PROHIBITED." in an additional attempt to protect myself from litigation
lunacy. Not sure if you may want to add something like it to your own
disclaimer.
Anyway keep up the good fight.
Regards
Tim A
_______
Licen
ore detailed explanation of what the term "derivative work" is supposed to
> mean within the scope of the GPLv2 ("If identifiable sections of that work
> are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered
> independent and separate works in themselves, then th
Nick Yeates wrote:>I too am curious what this "compilation license"ing is
and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn >asked, and Larry responded saying
basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did >not state *why*
he advises use of this licensing strategy fro
"'as “either the Program or any
> derivative work under copyright law", on the other hand sec. 2 contains a
> more detailed explanation of what the term "derivative work" is supposed to
> mean within the scope of the GPLv2 ("If identifiable sections of that work
bcc: license-discuss
to: license-review
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Nils Laumaillé wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm the developer of an open web tool (called Teampass) and would like to
> make it an official open-source tool. That's why I'm doing this request to
> the
, and can be reasonably considered
independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate
works."). Apparently, a computer program which is _not_ derived from GPL
code has nonetheless to be licensed under th
Till!
As I mentioned in a private thread, I didn't really see the need to
burn Till's time posting here, since the discussion was a side-issue
on the main thread about license compatibility, and an OSI director
had already said "oh no, not again" on the derivative works subthread.
How
x27;s accusations/insinuations. In fact, I'm
>> arguing against them, in case you missed it.
Anyway, my footnote comment that Luis quoted above wasn't intended
toward Al anyway, FWIW. :)
--
-- bkuhn
___
License-discuss mailing li
Quoting Nick Yeates (nyeat...@umbc.edu):
> I too am curious what this "compilation license"ing is...
Copyright law recognises the possiblity of an abstract property called a
'compilation copyright', that being the ownership interest gained by
someone who _creatively_ colle
ended
> toward Al anyway, FWIW. :)
My apologies for making assumptions, but it seemed as good a time as
any to point out the problem and solution :)
Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
commend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine
> various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even
> if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need
> to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've ev
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
> We have dropped "Al" from the list, as we believe he is Alexander
> Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked.
The authorial 'voice' matches.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-d
Jeni Tennison
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
dropped "Al" from the list, as we believe he is Alexander
Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked. Apologies that this
took several days longer than it should have.
Luis
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
h
is probably just a
compilation/arrangement issue.
> I agree that I don't know of anyone else who has done this.
... except Larry's clients, apparently. :)
--
-- bkuhn
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
in GPLv2§3 and GPLv3§6.
[0] And, to be clear to those who seem to have missed this point: I
*don't* agree with Al's accusations/insinuations. In fact, I'm
arguing against them, in case you missed it.
--
-- bkuhn
___________
License
Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
> en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download,
> installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project
> grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to
> the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a m
own the ...
en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License
This agreement governs your download, installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3
and its ...The openSUSE Project grants to you a license to this collective
work pursuant to the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operating system
consi
> Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
>> I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license
>> (in)compatibility. The below is probably the most I've ever written
>> on the subject, but it's in some ways a summary of items that
>> discu
s in
other areas _other_ than source acccess. What I'm saying is, no, that's
just not the case.
Many people dislike that fact. You're hardly the first.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensour
to a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even
if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need
to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed
GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL.
Of course, the original
e to trademarks (without additional trademark
>> license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive
>> contract. I would not call that GPL.
>
> You're entitled to be mistaken.
> Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and
My understanding is tha
y parallel, reading "packages" for "patches". I agree
that I don't know of anyone else who has done this.
--
"Why yes, I'm ten percent Jewish on my manager's side." John Cowan
--Connie Francis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com):
> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
> that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
> license, says Red Hat) and u
> Done -- thanks Josh. I used a slightly different wording, to give some
> examples of what that file is usually called, but basically it's the
> change you suggest above.
Thanks!
--Josh
_______
License-discuss mailing list
L
Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
> Rick,
>
> I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
> The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
> some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT):
> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
> that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
> license, says Red Hat) and under pay-
ords carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or deviating from
the usual or expected". :)
--
-- bkuhn
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Josh Berkus writes:
>The current "prelude" on The PostgreSQL License says:
>
>"This is a template license. The body of the license starts at the end
>of this paragraph. To use it, say that it is The PostgreSQL License, and
>then substitute the copyright year and nam
a collective work which has been organized by Red
>> Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Red Hat
>> then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective
>> work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General
>> Public
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL,
> since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly,
> to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and
> Red Hat licenses that copyri
he copyright in that collective work. Red Hat
> then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective
> work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General
> Public License (“GPL”) version 2 and Red Hat’s own End User License
> Agreement."
It's
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:16 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Al Foxone scripsit:
>
>> I doubt that "Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement" is
>> 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
>> combined work as whole. Anyway,
Al Foxone scripsit:
> I doubt that "Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement" is
> 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
> combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be
> full of proclaimed 'inc
1301 - 1400 of 5227 matches
Mail list logo
