if we have this license:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies,
and that the modified source code is released."
On 13/01/2017 20:29, John Cowan wrote:
When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that
you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's
exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part
of the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated
ormalized grammar suitable for context-free
parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers.
Ok I see your point of view: every sentence of written language if
analyzed in a too much formal way, can lose its true meaning.
According this, I 100% agree with you for MIT license, because it st
aybe discuss?
I added a comment to your post saying this:
Your conclusions are incorrect because you are jumping to a single
conclusion that is not justified. When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that
you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's
exactly what is mean
Hi, Larry--
Computer grammars can have context-free parsers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar
The phrase I used was as much a term of art from computer language / formal
grammar theory,
much as the terms of a software license involve terms of art from the law.
Regards
often write or review licenses without a standard grammar. And
then they assume that licensees are mind-readers or "compilers" of that legal
code.
That's the world we live in. Please don't disparage developers alone for this
problem.
/Larry
-Original Message-
F
itable for
context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers.
> This is the case for BSD-2, MIT, and ISC license. Instead Apache-2 license
> can be followed in a precise way, and its "step by step" interpretation
> implies exactly its intended meaning.
>
> The
uot;border-line" interpretation.
This is the case for BSD-2, MIT, and ISC license. Instead Apache-2
license can be followed in a precise way, and its "step by step"
interpretation implies exactly its intended meaning.
The analysis is in this mine blog-post:
http://another-ticke
ne of the simple
pleasures in life --Jeni Tennison
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
0 (which of course didn't exist in 2006 and
> which is significantly different from MPL 1.1)
>
I'm not sure "significantly" is quite the right word, at least when
compared to GPL v2->v3. The primary feature of the license (the file-level
copyleft) is intended to have the s
of this discussion, if we look at Black Duck's
list: https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses
...I can see 2-4 such thresholds:
Threshold 1: The 3rd license is 7% ahead of the 4th
Threshold 2: The 4th license is 3% ahead of the 5th
Threshold 3: The 8th license is 2% ahead of the 9th
maintain OSI's reputation as being (reasonably) neutral and independent,
> OSI should probably avoid basing this on third-party license surveys
> (e.g., Black
> Duck <https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses>) unless
> their methodologies and data sources are well-do
ng:
* Changes MPL 1.1 to MPL 2.0 (which of course didn't exist in 2006 and
which is significantly different from MPL 1.1)
* In contrast to MPL, the existence of significantly different
OSI-approved versions of the GPL and LGPL is ignored
* Ignores the fact that CDDL's current license st
Got it, thank you for the clarification.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Luis Villa
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:01 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Sub
stuff. So, is there a method of
> weighting the list based on unavoidable factors?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Luis Villa
> > Sent: Tuesday, J
, as for some of us
these are the only licenses we're permitted to use, but we'd still like to be
Open Sourcing our stuff. So, is there a method of weighting the list based on
unavoidable factors?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discus
Here
goes.
*tl;dr*
I think OSI should have an data-driven short license list with a replicable
and transparent methodology, supplemented by a new-and-good(?) list that
captures licenses that aren't yet popular but are high quality and have
some substantial improvement that advances the go
hey permit "Additional Permissions" which are defined in
> > the license, Sec 7, as "terms that supplement the terms of this
> > License *by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions*."
>
> The section 7, titled "Additional Terms", permits
On 06/01/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> GPLv3 (and the variants, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) do *not* permit
> "Additional Terms" (despite the section header called "Additional
> Terms"); they permit "Additional Permissions" which are defined in
> the license,
A point of potential pedantry or careful license interpretation:
GPLv3 (and the variants, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) do *not* permit "Additional Terms"
(despite the section header called "Additional Terms"); they permit
"Additional Permissions" which are defined in
On 06/01/17 10:55, Rick Moen wrote:
> Would that it were so. Lingora characterise their additions near the top as
> 'Additional Terms pursuant to Section 7 of said license', and clearly
> intend this to refer _not_ to additional permissions, but rather to
> this bit slightly furth
Quoting Gervase Markham (g...@mozilla.org):
> That page says:
>
> "OBM is an Free and Open Source messaging and collaboration software,
> distributed under the GNU Affero GPL v3 License terms, with Additional
> Terms pursuant to Section 7 of said license."
>
>
On 06/01/17 03:48, Marc Laporte wrote:
> The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms":
> http://obm.org/content/obm-license
That page says:
"OBM is an Free and Open Source messaging and collaboration software,
distributed under the GNU Affero GPL v3 License terms,
Quoting Marc Laporte (m...@marclaporte.com):
> Hello!
>
> The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms":
Whenever I see *GPL + 'Additional Terms', I immediately think 'Oh, this
is going to be yet another badgewear licence.
Back in the middle 2000s when there was a full-co
Hello!
The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms":
http://obm.org/content/obm-license
I'd like to know if you think it's OSD compatible and why or why not.
Thanks!
--
Marc Laporte
http://WikiSuite.org
http://PluginProblems.com
http:/
legal team: discussions specific to issues arising around SPDX and the
SPDX License List, but these can often reflect broader implications related to
open source licenses.
https://spdx.org/legal-team
Jilayne
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-disc
| | || | || || | || | ||| | |||
>
> Patrick Masson
> General Manager & Director, Open Source Initiative
> 855 El Camino Real, Ste 13A, #270
> Palo Alto, CA 94301
> United States
> Office: (415) 857-5398
> Mobile: (970) 4MASSON
> Email: mas...@opensource.org
&g
le: (970) 4MASSON
Email: mas...@opensource.org
Website: www.opensource.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Hi Patrick, if you poke through the archives for the license-discuss mailing
list, you'll find some discussion under ARL Open Source license. There is
also some discussion at the very bottom of
https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/issues/41, and
https://github.com
.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ion.
You're welcome. My perception at the time was that everyone on
license-review agreed that CC0 was OSD-compliant, because even if the
public domain dedication doesn't achieve the desired effect in
particular jurisdictions, the fallback permissive terms (clause 3)
clearly was in itself OSD-complian
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views
On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent
>language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI revi
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 04:17:03PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source
> license to the US Government.
>
>
> https://code.gov/
>
> "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of
bound
license and the new form of institutional contribution agreement. These
revisions were designed to accommodate concerns about the reach of the patent
license provisions in the contributor agreement. The patent license provision
was modified so that no license would be granted to pa
With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source
license to the US Government.
https://code.gov/
"We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of explicit
patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets
the definition of open s
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
>
>> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
>> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
>
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
accurately summarise its substance: W
wn customers, not a derogation of their right to do so.
In any event, I won't any longer lose sleep over this hypothetical. MIT is a
friend of mine. I hope they help me if I'm sued. :-)
Which doesn't address the question: "Views on patent licensing?"
/Larry
From: License-discuss [mailt
e deal between Yoyodyne and MIT.
>
Now this I do not understand. If Yoyodyne is the exclusive licensee, then
surely it has the right to sue/enjoin you as a user of their patented
technology, and your claim to have a subsequent license from the former
patent holder isn't going to help you, particu
John, my responses below. This is not legal advice! :-) /Larry
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:58 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required
> by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can
> be huge. Instead they said simply: "Here is this
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
> equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.
I just wanted to catch
John Cowan wrote:
> what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses
> they have issued? Apprarently so.
Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by
any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can b
of the Brode license (which ended up not being approved). The Brode
license provided that any pre-existing patent grant by MIT pre-empted
rights granted under the license, which a lot of us really didn't like --
what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses
they
Henrik Ingo wrote:
MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent
to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.
I also would like to see a reference to that written statement. But I believe
it to be true only if it means:
. . . does
On 12/12/2016 10:05 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
>> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, John Cowan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
that the BSD license is also a patent license.
MIT is on record as saying that t
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>
wrote:
Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
>
MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
equivalent to
t patents or copyrights. The point is that taking
>>an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate
>>file with additional terms and conditions, results in a combination which
>>as a whole is not OSI approved open source license. It is no different
>>from taking
(Resending a similar mail to d-legal because my previous attempt was
rejected by the OSI listserver.)
Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this
> paragraph:
>
> > 3
>
> So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested,
> redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat. _And_ all
> of the software is open source.
>
>
Case in point, CentOS did it for *years* before RH started sp
in that light. OSD 7 deals
with the situation where a license might have effects predicated on
completion of a licensing process elsewhere. For example, a license that
required completion of an NDA, or the securing of a support agreement, or
compliance with a trademark license, should not pass OSD 7
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
> license shall not
Ben Tilly wrote:
> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
> shall not require a roy
Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
[] But you can redistribute RHEL if you don't modify it. If you modify
it, apply a different trademark to distinguish it in the marketplace
So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
If an explicit patent grant is a requirement for open source should an explicit
trademark grant also be required? Does CPAL provide an implicit permission to
use
Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any
license of any kind.
The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the
inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent
infringement is a "price". However you are una
OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for
software:
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those
parties.
On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
<henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking
>an OSI approved license and making additions to it by a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>
wrote:
Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent
> grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD.
>
Inevitably so, since the BSD license family either grants no patent rights
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
> <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
> henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 2, 2
On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org>
>wrote:
>> - is it good practice,
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Henrik Ingo
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 6:55 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React lic
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org> wrote:
> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of
> software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent
> license grants or nonasserts? (This has been don
assessing the propriety of the patent termination provision:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1637=iplj
(page 43)
-Eli
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman
Etienne,
You may also want to look at https://tldrlegal.com/ <https://tldrlegal.com/> as
it’s a site that tries to simplify license understanding. Of course, still pay
attention to the full text of any license you work with and seek legal
consultation as warranted, but maybe a useful re
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:26:03PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the
> licensing of React
Another reference: Facebook has published a brief FAQ on what it calls
the "Facebook BSD+Patents license":
https:
technologies..
I think the best is to start with licences that are clearly permissive for our
situation, and have our legal department keep an eye on that. They’ll decide
what to do for other situations more subtle.
Best regards.
Etienne
De : License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun
Personally, I am conflicted with the idea of exact conditions
and requirements of a LICENSE not being fully specified in
the LICENSE itself. It almost seems like a way to "get around"
at least OSI approval, plus it adds (IMO) confusion. It is
quite possible to have an OSI approved li
gt; Legal [3] (which among other things argues that the React patent
> license is not open source). Luis Villa wrote an interesting response
> [4].
Mr. Pierce’s first criticism point about the grant itself being unnecessary is
spot on to me. One cannot "use the software” without imp
The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the
licensing of React [1], which is essentially the 3-clause BSD license
along with, in a separate file, an 'Additional Grant of Patent Rights'
[2].
The Additional Grant of Patent Rights is a patent license grant that
includes
And being compliant is the right thing to do.
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Ben Tilly
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:32 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the
software business
. Many lawyers think that the GPL
FAQ is overly optimistic about how much power the license will have if
litigated. On the other hand staying within its suggestions greatly limits
the odds of problems down the road.
In general each open source license aims to allay some fear that the author
the quotes are chosen at random by a script
from <http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/signatures>, but sometimes I choose one
on purpose. I've been collecting and using them for 30+ years.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
de if he wants.
E.g , if displaydate.js is an open source library released under the LPGP
licence, in our code:
would be an incorrect usage, whereas:
http://www.yahoo.com/displaydate.js"</a>;>
would be a correct usage.
Is it correct ?
Thank you.
Cordialement, Best regards.
Etienne
De
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:01:40PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Just curious as I get crickets in license-review.
>
> I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation...but an update
> on NOSA v2 and UCL would be nice.
Sorry Nigel, I have now responded on license-revi
+meeker
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Ben Tilly
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:44 AM
To: License Discuss
Cc: c...@theiet.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the
software business
Nigel's list is biased
a lawyer and the license. And
don't rely on opinions from a mailing list.
One final note, I would recommend that it may be worth your while to find a
lawyer with open source experience, and not just familiarity with
intellectual property. Open source licenses are somewhat unusual, and
there are common
Define alive. This mailing list works...
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>
wrote:
> Just curious as I get crickets in license-review.
>
> I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation…but an update
> on NOSA v2 and
app or Windows/MacOS/Linux program is an issue. On your internal server if you
used any AGPL code it may be an issue.
Your normal lawyer should be able to find you an IP lawyer but you might as
well start going over your code base.
Regards,
Nigel
From: License-discuss
<license-discuss-b
You _are_ in the software business.
The correct person to evaluate your case is your lawyer.
As Woolley said, regardless of which the license of the software you choose
uses, you still have responsibility under open source license, and your
customers have expectations as provided
.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
.
**
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
6UlsKNTvkcT1kSLsGPHXKG9hkPGc7x-EDNdv2aEF8s&_hsmi=36352335)___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 21/10/16 13:47, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work,
but those other people may not"
That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy /
terms of use.
Licenses are te
> Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this
> work, but those other people may not"
That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy /
terms of use.
___
License-disc
Commons licenses always let me download a cultural work
(such as a photograph) and give it to my neighbor.
Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this
work, but those other people may not" is not an open source license.
Similarly, the Creative Common
site and serve the watermarked version to non-members with a CC-BY-NC-ND
license (or not at all) and the original version to members with a less
restrictive CC license.
You cannot AFAIK attach any additional restrictions as CC notes in the human
readable license text:
* No additional
Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.
You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to
understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed
using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to
download
> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different
> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the
> general license?
One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should
be no
content and a CC-BY-SA license. naturally there are
restrictions on who can create content.
1) There is some content created by us which is members-only for various
reasons - privacy laws/confidentiality, or simply withheld as an incentive
to actually join the organisation.
2) There is also some
Hello All,
I was looking at the Free Public License/Zero Clause BSD License, and I
saw that its warranty disclaimer is a lot longer/more capitalized than
the zlib warranty disclaimer.
The Free Public License says:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
We've used GitLab before, and we like it as well. Might be a good way to go
too.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Rick Moen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 6:29 PM
> To:
[cross-post to license-review, snipped.]
Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil):
> What about GitHub?
Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source
licenses? Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods of Irony.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:02 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source
What about GitHub? There have been suggestions on the Python-ideas list to do
this for any new python ideas. The idea is simple; each license becomes its
own project. Issues can then be tracked via the issue tracker, making it easy
to segregate the issues into individual threads
OK, so it's the way I thought. First, propose a license on this list for
discussion, but the actual review takes place on the license-review mailing
list.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
&g
Cem Karan wrote:
> I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be
> submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to
> license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this?
Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion.
301 - 400 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
