Miles Fidelman wrote:
I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that
permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for for-profit
hosting.
Stephen Paul Weber responded:
Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe
> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that
> permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for
> for-profit hosting.
Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that
AGPL would get you very close to t
There are any number of licenses written in this way. CC BY-NC-* for example.
None of them are open source, however. See OSD 1 & 6.
You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource
Hi Kevin and Cem,
I think the confusion here is indeed about ownership vs, access, As I
understand Cem’s project he wants to provide access to third parties to its
code and wants to ‘license’ it. However open source license (afaik) deal with
the ownership part of the code and does not deal
Hi Folks,
I'm working on some code that will eventually be made available as both
open source code, and a hosted service (think Wordpress, Drupal, etc.).
I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses
that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license
OK, so there is a possibility that there is no copyright in foreign (to the
US) countries because such countries may choose to interpret the Berne
convention in that manner. That suggests to me that the USG needs a
contract-based license even more than it already did, otherwise there may
--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl <http://www.kl.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 |
@mzeinstra
> On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:42, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: License-dis
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:39 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) scripsit:
> A copyright-based license may work outside of the US because the USG
> would (probably) have copyright protections there?
Depending solely on local law, so there is no uniform answer.
> As far as I know, this hasn't been litigated any
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:57 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
rvival value. --Ian Johnston
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
? If that were
possible, we wouldn't need the ARL OSL at all.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
Version 0.4.0, July 2016
http://no/URL/as/yet
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
to assign their
copyright to the USG, in which case the ARL OSL will provide a license for that
material as well. Finally, once a project starts accepting contributions,
contributors may have copyright. They are licensing their material under the
ARL OSL. Even if the USG doesn't have standing
) A license is a contract. The USG can enter into and enforce contracts. Thus,
the USG can enforce a license by going to court, etc. It can also defend
itself in court based on a license (e.g., to defend against claims of warranty,
etc.).
2) Copyright is an entirely separate issue. Copyright can
on is claimed; however, unless the
> legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the
> term fixed in the country of origin of the work.’ If the U.S. term of
> protection is 0 years, than other countries would also apply 0 years.
>
> @John, @Cem: do
network in the U.S. If not, any license you want to apply on
this material is immediately void (which is only a theoretical problem imo).
Regards,
Maarten
--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl <http://www.kl.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 |
@mzeinstra
> On 29 Jul 2016, at 19:37, Karan,
I've talked with the lawyer in the ARL legal office. He says he is in contact
with people up and down the chain of command, so that should be taken care of.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
&g
I've passed your question along, I'll answer as soon as I know.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:16 PM
> To: license-discuss
has asserted this, but he is checking to see if
he can find case law regarding this to definitively answer the question.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra
> Sent: Sun
. On the other hand DoD OSS projects are somewhat special cases
themselves and UARCs have to deal with a variety of research grant sources
and are typically smaller pieces of the larger university system.
On 7/28/16, 4:38 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)"
), then no foreign rights can be assigned as well. Hence the work must be
in the public domain world wide.
I have more experience with Creative Commons-licenses than with Open Source
license, but in CC licenses the license exists for the duration of the right. I
assume all Open Source licenses
Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know the
army has an intellectual property counsel as part of the JAG/USALSA out at
Ft. Belvoir.
You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent License
Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably want
I've incorporated some suggested changes into the ARL OSL, and bumped the
version number to reflect this. The new text is both below and attached, and
can be diffed with the text at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt.
Change log:
1) Changed 'Apache' to 'ARL OSL' everywhere
Thank you! I've subscribed to legal-disc...@apache.org and will be bringing
up our license there shortly. And thank you for all your points, assuming you
don't mind, I'll bring them up at legal-disc...@apache.org as well.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-d
Hi Cem,
> On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>
> OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license
> (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word
>
Hi Cem,
> On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
>
> OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license
> (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word
>
."
Cheers!
Sean
_______
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 Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:49 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
On 25/07/16 17:33, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> OK, I see where you're coming from, I'm just not comfortable with it. I'm
> much more comfortable with a single license that covers everything. I also
> know that our lawyers would be more comfortable with a single
OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license
(attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the word
'Apache', which I'd left in earlier). Is the license compatible with Apache
2.0 and the licenses that Apache 2.0 is compatible with? If not, why
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:20 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
--Duck Soup
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
of notice the USG
> could be sued because bugs cause a crash at some point, causing harm, etc.,
> etc., etc. The 'no warranty' clause is something we have to have. In fact,
> if you read the CC0 license text
> (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode), even
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
On 25/07/16 15:12, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> Even though it will be headache to do so, we still need to. USG works that
> don't have copyright attached must still have a license/contract that offers
> the same protections as one would expect from the Apache 2.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 9:24 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:27 AM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Licens
On 25/07/16 13:46, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> 1) Put out a notice to the world that the code covered under the license is
> 'AS-IS'; the whole 'no warranty' part in the Apache 2.0 license. This needs
> to cover not only the USG, but also any contributors.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Maarten Zeinstra
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 3:51 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:23 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [Non-DoD S
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:12 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 5:09 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research
the US. Thus, if a
>> project is downloaded and used outside of the USA, then any work produced by
>> a
>> US Government employee will have foreign copyright protection, and the terms
>> of the License should apply to that copyright as well.
>
> Presumably it's the
I don't understand your worry. Not only can't you assert copyright in the U.S.,
you can't prevent anyone in the U.S. from copying or modifying those works even
without any license needed from you. You can't even rely on contract law in the
U.S. to protect against those uses here. I hav
f this, we need a license that meets our legal and regulatory needs, but
> is ideally fully interchangeable with everything licensed under the Apache 2
> license as defined at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt. We also
> want our license to be fully accepted by OSI as a v
On 22/07/16 22:01, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> Unfortunately, we cannot directly use the Apache 2 license for all of our
> code. Most of our researchers work for the US Federal Government and under US
> copyright law any works they produce during the course of their
by a
> US Government employee will have foreign copyright protection, and the terms
> of the License should apply to that copyright as well.
Presumably it's the US government that holds the foreign copyright, since
its employees are making works made for hire.
You should probably add back "
Hi, my name is Cem Karan. I work for the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in
Adelphi, MD. I'm in charge of defining the Open Source policy for ARL. As a
part of this, we need a license that meets our legal and regulatory needs, but
is ideally fully interchangeable with everything licensed
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for the inputs. I have been trying to make the case that trademark is
adequate to address injunctive relief needs, but needed to survey the landscape
of alternative possibilities (and their downsides). As it is, the best
defensive argument is looking to be license
Somehow similar
clause is in AL 2.0, 4b), though not as broad.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Thank you, this clarifies a lot.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:19 AM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> > the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
> > discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use.
>
> Actually it si
Vaclav Petras scripsit:
> the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
> discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use.
Actually it simply forbids redistribution by commercial entities, not use.
> It seems to me that this clear violates the Op
Hello all,
the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which
discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use. It seems to me that
this clear violates the Open Source Definition [2] because it discriminates
against a specific field of endeavor. Can somebody please
rl...@mac.com>
wrote:
> Is there any OSI-approved license that provides injunctive relief to an
> original author in the situation of a bad actor creating a damaging
> derivative? To figure this out, I’ve been researching and trying to sort
> out:
>
> 1) which existing OSI-a
to blindly
agree that something-or-other causes irreparable harm just because a contract
says that it does:
The injunction request would stem from someone not adhering to the license /
agreement terms, regardless of whether it is causing harm (though it's probably
easy to argue that someone
Hi, Sean--
On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> wrote:
> Is there any OSI-approved license that provides injunctive relief to an
> original author in the situation of a bad actor creating a damaging
> derivative?
At least for the US, in
Is there any OSI-approved license that provides injunctive relief to an
original author in the situation of a bad actor creating a damaging derivative?
To figure this out, I’ve been researching and trying to sort out:
1) which existing OSI-approved licenses impose derivative requirements (e.g
of different licenses, what can I license
the trained system under?
It seems in some ways some systems can be seen as lossy compression
systems, e.g. (1) - so those are on the edge of having a lot of the original
source, but that doesn't feel like it should be true of something trained
for voice
Thanks Gustavo! That makes sense to me.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:01 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: License-discuss
to the original license terms that it would not be acceptable
under this License. If accepted it would be fine for "other license
created" but not the FPL already approved by the OSI. That´s to say, It
would be other license, and not anymore the FPL. Cheers, Gustavo.
2016-06-16 9:00
Would love to get the group's input on the following issue.
I'm reviewing a software license agreement that purports to license software
under the Free Public License 1.0.0 (FPL), which is quite permissive. The
approved FPL license terms are included in the license grant.
But in a subsequent
Greetings,
The OSI recently changed the settings for license-discuss to permit
posting only from subscribers to the list. All nonsubscribers who
attempt to post to the list will receive an informative rejection
message. This step was particularly necessary because of the enormous
volume of spam
I agree completely with Philippe; a statement such as you proposed does not
modify the license, but it indicates to downstream consumers the scenarios
under which they could expect you to (potentially) enforce the attribution
requirement, and situations under which you do not intend to enforce
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Andi McClure <andi.m.mccl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am working on some projects (a programming language, a game library) for
> which I wish to use a "source attribution" license-- for example, the zlib
> license, or the 2-clause BSD license
Andi McClure wrote:
> The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers to
> "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code".
> Without a definition, how do I (or someone who uses my project) know
On 20/05/16 03:06, Andi McClure wrote:
"For purposes of the above license, 'source' is defined as the
preferred form for making modifications to the code. In other words,
minified Javascript which is not intended to be modified does not count
as a 'source distribution'."
…and if
Andi McClure scripsit:
> The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers
> to "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code".
[...]
> The Apache and MPL licenses *do* define "source code"
I am working on some projects (a programming language, a game library) for
which I wish to use a "source attribution" license-- for example, the zlib
license, or the 2-clause BSD license if I could somehow delete the second
clause. I want people redistributing or reusing source co
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Paul R. Tagliamonte
<paul...@opensource.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> For those who don't know, Trove classifiers are used by the Python
> world to talk about what is contained in the Python package. Stuff
> like saying "It's under the MIT/Exp
Hey all,
For those who don't know, Trove classifiers are used by the Python
world to talk about what is contained in the Python package. Stuff
like saying "It's under the MIT/Expat license!" or "It's beta!".
I was looking at the tags, and I saw one that made me "wat&
ther!
>
> You can find the Open Source API at:
>
>https://api.opensource.org/
Very nice. Congrats and thanks!
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
/master/doc/endpoints.md
A Python wrapper I hacked up:
https://github.com/opensourceorg/python-opensource
Some example queries:
https://api.opensource.org/licenses/
https://api.opensource.org/licenses/permissive
https://api.opensource.org/license/GPL-3.0
https://api.opensource.org
Zluty,
>> is Company Bar required to reproduce the text of the license?
It is always best to consult with your legal counsel for precise guidance on
your specific situation. Here is an Open Source Movement perspective of the
problem:
The Movement is founded upon the principle of fricti
to apply to all distributions, no
matter how many parties are involved. Otherwise, it would be fairly trivial
to construct a set of legal entities that allowed you to avoid the
attribution obligation entirely.
For (b), removing clause 2 from the 2-clause BSD license would make it a
different
Hi there,
I was wondering the following regarding attribution clauses in licenses like
the BSD 3-clause and derivatives.
a) If Company Foo manufactures a product (think Integrated Circuit) that
contains portions of software (say firmware in ROM) in binary form covered by
the BSD license
icenses:
Licensor hereby additionally asserts that the copyleft, reciprocity, or
derivative work obligations in this license only apply to software that is
modified or expressly changed in its executable or source code form.
This is just a wish that the FOS
law.
> This is unfortunate for those of us who want to obey licenses. Wouldn't it
> be nice if the following sentence – by mutual agreement – was added to ALL
> of our FOSS licenses:
>
>
>
> *Licensor hereby additionally asserts that the copyleft, reciprocity,
> or derivative
Hi Diane, thanks very much for copying the words of the CC licenses. I agree
with those words in your license except for the word "arranged." They DO mean
"derivative work." In fact, those are almost the same words that I used in my
own licenses to mean that difficult cop
national law.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
In my last lifetime, I believed in reincarnation;
in this lifetime, I don't. --Thiagi
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.openso
is: http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm.
>
> I would appreciate it if FSF and OSI would copy this document to their own
> websites instead of inventing their own.
>
> Best regards, /Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:m...@klomp.
, 2016 12:32 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-rev...@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay
>
Dear members of the license-{review,discuss} mailing lists,
this message is to inform you that we have reintegrated into the
current list archives all the old messages that were previously
available at a different website. You can see the results at the
official list archives at:
https
Hi,
I've got a question concerning "The Artistic License" of Perl.
Since I don't find any hints elsewhere and since the Perl web site
refers to this mailing list, I post my question here.
Hope that this is the right place.
The question is basically: Are we allowed to distribute
fall through the cracks here, or is there some longer story?
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 11/12/2015 10:33 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Sun never bothered to request approval for 1.1 as the lawyers involved
regarded the changes as trivial.
Hmmm. Doesn't that put consumers in the awkward position of using
software which is not strictly speaking under an OSI-approved license?
I
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
>
>
>
> _______
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
--
Simon P
zation
<http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf> , Executive Summary,
page 1, first paragraph.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Henrik Ingo [mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 12:03 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
S
o stand to gain from co-opting orphaned
works and then including them into new, copyrighted productions.
henrik
--
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc
My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
__
Not OSD compatible.
On 6 Dec 2015 8:56 p.m., "Marc Laporte" <m...@marclaporte.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> bpmn-js is a BPMN 2.0 diagram modeling and rendering toolkit.
>
> The license is here:
> https://github.com/bpmn-io/bpmn-js/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> wh
ocuses on empowering key players
to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an
all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. --Alex Papadimoulis
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
able playing.
- Michael
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
xpect the standard to be one that large
corporations can routinely comply with but that independent
creators/remixers are likely to struggle with, much like the current
situation regarding clearing and licensing audio samples.
- Michael
___
License-discus
pular speakers will define
the open source community and describe its licenses for those new to this
area of intellectual property in software.
* David Marr (Qualcomm) and MItch Segal (Hewlett-Packard): Attorneys
for large technology companies describe their own best practices for open
s Digitization":
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
nto a new derivative work, provided the harm to the
> owner-author is reputational in nature and not otherwise compensable;
>
>
>
> · Condition the ability of state actors to enjoy limitations on
> injunctive relief upon their payment of any agreed-upon or court-ordered
>
litigation or some action
against the Commission as software licensor.
One could not exclude either that in case of linking between a GPL-covered
program and a proprietary program, the Court may consider that distributing
the linked work under a proprietary license would* “**prejudices
g>
Free Software Foundation<https://donate.fsf.org>
GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID?
See our Email Self-Defense Guide:
<https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org>
_____
As we periodically return to this famous discussion on "Linking requesting
a specific license exception or a permission from the author", I just
remind once again that - at least according to EU legislation, the "linking
exception" is - under specific conditions - a rule t
Whoops, I listened again, and Bradley does later mention that Google
could use the classpath exception, at the very end.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
about OpenJDK and IcedTea, they don't
mention this notion.
A GPL linking exception modifies the GNU General Public License (GPL) in
a way that enables software projects which provide library code to be
"linked to" the programs that use them, without applying the full terms
of the GPL to
501 - 600 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
