I've forwarded the link to our lawyers, I'll ping them on Friday when I get
back in the office to see what they say.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss@op
: Jim Wright <jwri...@commsoft.com<mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com>>,
license-discuss@opensource.org
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was:
Re: U.S. Army Research Lab
No. The material can always be separated into two piles; stuff that has
copyright attached, and stuff that does not have copyright attached. The
stuff that has copyright attached is always released under the chosen
OSI-approved license; everything else is released under CC0. Within the US
OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source
license.
If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated
as any DOD approved open source license.
That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as
open source
) in the software that is being released, so that should cover
anyone downstream.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jwri...@commsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:53 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Richar
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:39:01PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is
> more
> palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on
> copyright. We're trying to mee
Certainly the approach code.mil spells out to contributions seems ok without
having to address the license issue at all, but these questions seem orthogonal
to me. Cem seems to be trying to ensure that all open source projects
operating using this process are under an OSI approved license
of its approach.
The question remains from many years of discussion here: What is wrong with CC0
being approved by OSI as a license for components in other open source
software? Including for U.S. government works that may (or may not) be public
domain?
The absence of an explicit patent pro
to our
lawyers. Public domain release without disclaimers of warranty and liability
is not acceptable.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2
I see your points about the Apache license vs. CC0, but the reason CC0 is more
palatable is because we're not trying to make any restrictions based on
copyright. We're trying to meet the spirit of US law, and our lawyers believe
that CC0 has the best chance of doing that.
As to your second
+, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Richard,
>
> It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as
> a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide
> guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the
> opportunity
it.
But my point is that it is arguably inconsistent to say you can't use
the Apache License 2.0 but can use CC0, which, for example, contains a
waiver and fallback copyright license. To put it another way, the
public domain that CC0 attempts to achieve is not the same thing as
the public domain of U
used world-wide, because the license for the US Government
furnished code is unclear. CC0 settles the question as far as possible across
all jurisdictions, and as long as all external contributions are under the
chosen OSI-approved license, all material in a project will be covered by one
Richard,
It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a
significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide
guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity
to pass CC0 years ago.
CC0 is accepted as open source
erning the use of nominal copyright licenses, I'd find it
surprising if CC0 was treated differently.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
no need to use
> CC0. Indeed, I would think use of CC0 by the Government is just as
> problematic, or non-problematic, as the use of any open source
> license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
> CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
>
I may
, as the use of any open source
license, such as the Apache License 2.0. Strictly speaking, the use of
CC0 assumes that you have copyright ownership.
Only noting this because the fact that OSI has not approved CC0 makes
this more complicated than the case where CC0 is not used at all.
The code.mil
age-
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:23 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open
> Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
>
> All, the folks at code.m
ARL's policy (see
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions#433214A2C17C11E6952E003EE1B763F8)
cover this. External contributions would be covered by the OSI-approved
license, so the patent/IP terms in that license will cover those patent
rights.
Thanks
As a part of ARL's internal release process, the Lab waives all patent/IP
rights (except for the ARL trademarks). That only leaves the external
contributions, which would be done under one of the OSI-approved licenses.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-d
Would CC0 plus Apache licenses resolve the patent problem?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Smith, McCoy
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:37 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss
FWIW, I have authored what I call a "plug-in" license intended to allow an
add-in patent license to licenses like CC0 that lack one (or disclaim them).
It's a bit of a WIP, and isn't OSI approved (nor would it likely ever be as
it's not an independent license). I presented it to th
nt accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both
of these issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some
discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday
to:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:28 PM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] The Federal Register Process
become relevant to the public.
How that process concludes is up to democracy.
But at least it won't be just a bunch of attorneys in a government department
who are worried that their public domain software might already be used as a
part of open source software without any new license
to tell people about
something in the Federal Register, but the law can be... unexpected.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:54 PM
> To: license-discuss
based on legal
reasoning; etc. It is not an in-house in-government discussion. :-)
/Larry
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
nlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Cell: 707-478-8932
>
>
>
> This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Mo
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Michael Kellat
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:11 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
>
gel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:53 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> Cc: feedb...@dds.mil; sharon.wo...@dds.mil
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army
inal Message-
From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:11 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research
Laboratory Open Sourc
in a contract” because the devs sitting at desks need something,
anything, yesterday.
Cheers!
Sean
[1] https://sourcecode.cio.gov <https://sourcecode.cio.gov/>
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.op
message to your attorneys:
>
>
>
> Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a
> non-lawyer is insulting to those of us on this list who are lawyers
> and who well understand the law of copyright and open source. They
> are also insulting the non-l
I've forwarded your frustrations onwards; I don't know what the response will
be.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:43 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARM
of Army create a suitable open source agreement for all of DoD. On
first reading I don’t think the Defense Open Source Agreement meets your needs
though.
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of
"Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>
Rep
r details.
I apologize for again writing to you, Cem, since you are doing a great job at
this thread, but it is the only way I know to get my message to your attorneys:
Their behavior in funneling their license to this public list via a non-lawyer
is insulting to those of us on this list who ar
I've read it. I've gotten in contact with the code.mil folks, and we'll be
discussing it in person shortly.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:01 PM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; lic
to:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:50 PM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] U.S.
For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD
published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of there
being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md
wyer(s). I'd like to hear from them
directly or on this list.
Cem Karan wrote:
. . . the truly serious issue is severability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). The concern is that if the USG
uses a license that depends on co
don't have to worry about it, I can drop the ARL OSL (which, to be honest,
would make my life easier; it ain't fun getting yelled at by everyone on this
list). However, at this moment I have yet to find a Government lawyer that is
100% comfortable with using a copyright-based license
Cem Karan wrote:
. . . the truly serious issue is severability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability). The concern is that if the USG
uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses
are declared unenfor
All, I've been asked to republish the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open
Source License (ARL OSL) once again so that others can read it. This is the
most current copy. It is based off of the Apache 2.0 license that can be
found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
and free software.”
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1092364/dod-announces-the-launch-of-codemil-an-experiment-in-open-source
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of
Luis Villa <l...@lu.is>
Reply-To: Lic
Link?
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017, 2:37 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>
wrote:
> I was looking at the draft Defense Open Source Agreement is it’s rather
> sparse…any insight as they say they met with the OSI and FSF to draft it?
>
> ___
I was looking at the draft Defense Open Source Agreement is it’s rather
sparse…any insight as they say they met with the OSI and FSF to draft it?
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
the only opinion that really matters is that of the copyright holder who
> has chosen to use a particular license.
Up to a point, Minister. After that point, the only opinions that really
matters are t
Y RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent
> >
> > "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>
> > writ
iately picture the specific situation you're talking about,
but in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend other
licenses depending on the situation (see
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html).
We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just
c
, and therefore
should care more about such situations.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:04 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
>
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought
> Caw."
> Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack
> Handey
> r...@linuxmafia.com
> McQ! (4x80)
> ___
> License-discuss mailing
nes.
--
Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80)
_______
License-discuss mailing list
Li
dormant nowadays and its mailing lists pages are 404.
- or if one feels strongly about the topic, public shaming?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
[2] http://gpl-violations.org
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___________
Licen
...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific
doctrine. I can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to
provide guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the
OSI occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM
Cheers, Homo in Domu Alba, qui est iratus et habet in
Rick Moenartificialibus capillum: Quod homo non sit
r...@linuxmafia.com honesta, et est perniciosa in rei publicae.
McQ! (4x80)
___
L
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:17 PM, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk>
wrote:
> On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
>
>> Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved
>> licenses?
>>
>
> I would have
On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved licenses?
I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal
advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the
other
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source]
Got it. Thank you! The URL will be helpful in this case then.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Fleming
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:05 PM
> To: license-discuss
854-6808-49b1-9a0a-50b81f2d617a
Cheers!
Sean
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ran@mail.mil> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:06 PM
> > To: License Discussion Mailing List <license
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: License Discussion Mailing List <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Subj
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>
> Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved
> licenses?
> Something similar to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.ht
Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved licenses?
Something similar to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ? Our
researchers are pulling in code from all kinds of sources, and we want to keep
them out of legal hot water, and a compatibility chart would
County Schools
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Hi,
Long time reader, finally subscribed and posting..
I was wondering if the OSI had any input on whether or not the ACE license
[1] would be considered an approved Open Source license? The contents read
very BSDish, however in more laymans terms. So i'm wondering if it would
be OK
, and in
the displayed copyright notices, so minor parts. We agree that C is in
practice B with a different name. But C is using B, and BSD and ISC
license allow this.
So Carlos is the distributor of C, and not B, because it is distributing
a "different" product with a different name, copyri
m the waiver of warranty
> > applies?
>
> From what I understood, the situation seems this:
>
> * suppose A is product released under BSD or ISC license
> * AA is the copyright holder of A
> * B is a product with a different (maybe commercial) license, and B is
>
On 01/27/2017 05:42 AM, David Woolley wrote:
> On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote:
>> Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire*
>> derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you
>> cannot prevent the making of other derivative wor
On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote:
Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire*
derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you
cannot prevent the making of other derivative works under license from
the original author.
That doesn't seem to be the US
. o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
without giving specifics (despite the additional
subjectivity this would introduce).
I'd still suggest pushing for collaboratively drafted, which could include
"merely" incorporating substantial feedback from license-review, as in the
case of UPL, but ideally would rise to the GPL/MPL leve
:
* suppose A is product released under BSD or ISC license
* AA is the copyright holder of A
* B is a product with a different (maybe commercial) license, and B is
using A source code
* if B product "cite/credit" A, then according A license, B can use A
source code
* BB is the copyright
43/latest/DLM346274.html
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
you can do (or not) with code licensed
under Apache/GPL license (it affects the users)
* the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" is what the author
of programs had to do, for releasing the software under Apache or GPL
license (it must be addressed to producers of the source code, not us
On 01/18/2017 02:00 PM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
>> have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the
>> corresponding web pa
Massimo Zaniboni wrote in another thread:
> - a short version of the license terms
Alex Rousskov responded:
> There is no "short version" of GPL or Apache terms. What folks often put in
> source code files is a reference to a document that contains the actual
> licens
++.
Then every year I suspect they have an utility extending the year range.
Regards,
Massimo
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each
source code file with:
AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the
cor
On 01/18/2017 10:33 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each
> source code file with:
AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" mark
On 18/01/2017 16:26, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
B's license is very flexible in terms of where the attribution notice maybe
placed.
> As long as C puts it in the documentation or other materials provided
with the distribution, it will be in compliance.
Yes now I agree with this v
On 18/01/2017 17:29, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Again, the license applies to code/software, not some "source file" with
ASCII art containing badly copied license text at the top.
> There are
> many ways to associate code with the copyright/license statement. The
> more p
are contains code licensed under the
>> following licenses:" header.
> So probably to comply 100% with the requirement of the license, if you
> have 10 source files, with the license header in them, for reusing the
> code in these files, you need to extract all the different auth
ght
owner of B because I'm the author of B. Then automatically by law (Berne
Convention) I have all the rights on B, and I can decide to license B
under my terms of choice.
I can use A in B, only if I respect the license of A. So in case of BSD
and ISC only if I cite the original authors, and th
uot;use" implies that you can
transform/move/reorganize the source code.
When dealing with a project containing a complex mixture of simple,
"simple" :-) More I read BSD license text, and less I think it is
simple. I prefer complex but clear licenses :-)
compatible licenses l
" the Master asked.
"A Dinar doesn't go very far these days, Master.--Kehlog Albran
Besides, the Temple of Toplat is across the street." The Profit
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Massimo Zaniboni <
massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote:
Sincerely I don't fully understand this sentence. Are you saying that if
> license A allows me to use, modify and distribuite the code of product A
> (like BSD, and ISC are saying), then is
On 01/18/2017 04:20 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> The only annoying part when mixing two of them together is that you
> must still correctly retain the license for each piece of code. So the
> source code file that was originally BSD licensed must retain the BSD
> license in its header,
nnot
> satisfy the combination of them. For the so called "short permissive"
> licenses like BSD and MIT, the general consensus is that they can be
> mixed with pretty much anything else.
>
> The only annoying part when mixing two of them together is that you
> must still
lled "short permissive"
licenses like BSD and MIT, the general consensus is that they can be
mixed with pretty much anything else.
The only annoying part when mixing two of them together is that you
must still correctly retain the license for each piece of code. So the
source code file t
T, but I'm unsure if I'm allowed to since a piece of software included
(3rd part lib) is BSD2.
--
Mvh,
Mikkel Bonde
Reberbansgade 52 2. mf
9000 Aalborg
Kontakt:
#: 28 68 01 33
@: mikbo...@gmail.com
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@open
that if
license A allows me to use, modify and distribuite the code of product A
(like BSD, and ISC are saying), then is it implicit by common laws that
I can distribuite the software using my license terms?
This will simplify a lot the interpretation of BSD and ISC licenses
, is being waived.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 17/01/2017 17:44, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
"relicensing" is implicitely permitted by
Berne Convention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention], and
so the license text had no to repeat this.
... ehm a better version of the phrase:
"The Berne Convention states th
On 17/01/2017 16:13, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
On 17/01/2017 15:31, Kevin Fleming wrote:
Apache/MIT/GPL specify explicitely how you can relicense derived works:
* in GPL you mus apply the same GPL license also to derived works
* in MIT/Apache you can freely relicense the derived work, until
On 17/01/2017 15:31, Kevin Fleming wrote:
In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation
to publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and
license notices.
Yes, but not only this. Copyleft licenses like GPL define *also* the
license on which
In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation to
publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and
license notices. It is generally assumed that nearly all licenses will
incur some sort of attribution obligation, including 'permissive' licenses.
On Fri
201 - 300 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
