Mike Milinkovich writes:
> I have a sort of meta-problem with this idea. The OSI approves licenses.
> IANAL, but to me this is not a license. It does not by itself grant any
> rights. Therefore I wonder if it is even valid for consideration?
Well, you aren't the only one to have a met
Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org):
> Well, you aren't the only one to have a meta-problem with it; I do too,
> and yet I'm the submitter. "Is it a license" is one of the questions I
> mused over, a kind of copyright existentialism (what, like, is a l
Feeling reminiscent of the good old days, when the threads of identi.ca
flowed freely with obscure licensing periphery, I have decided to try
my hand at crafting where so many have dared to try (and fail) in
penning an Open Source license worthy of the OSI license list.
I decided to author
bmitted (having
> been withdrawn by submitter
<>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org):
Congratulations on coming up with a novel licensing concept.
Pretty wild, but definitely novel. That is a rare accomplishment.
> # -- (C)
> # Released under the "Any Free License 2015-11-05", whose terms
>
ing where so many have dared to try (and fail) in
> penning an Open Source license worthy of the OSI license list.
>
> I decided to author the most open license of all time, for those who
> just can't decide over license minutiae. Here it is. Simply copy this
> into your programming he
being the main point. It's really pretty much a classic of that
form, _and_ (unlike WTFPL and Unlicense) extremely well drafted.
Commenters on license-review disliked CC0 going out of its way to state
that there are _no_ patent rights conveyed, instead of the approach
taken by most permissive li
On 09/11/2015 9:17 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
Feeling reminiscent of the good old days, when the threads of identi.ca
flowed freely with obscure licensing periphery, I have decided to try
my hand at crafting where so many have dared to try (and fail) in
penning an Open Source license
Sorry, I now realize you were asking about the attribution requirement in
materials accompanying binary distributions. Just use BSD stamped into each
file & and include a waiver of the attribution requirements in the LICENSE
file, or stamp zlib into each file (it is shorter than BSD in any
I doubt it. The BSD license text itself stamped into each file would seem
to fulfil the attribution requirement. If you are concerned about this for
some reason, you can simply make that explicit in the LICENSE file.
IANAL, TINLA, etc.
- Michael Bernstein
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Sagar
I think that we have more than enough licenses with these characteristics.
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Michael R. Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:27 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Short
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 11:56 +0530, Sagar wrote:
> Do you think the community will be interested in a shorter license?
You might be interested in the Free Public License, which is currently
under review on the license-review list [1], and has been recommended
for consideration by the OSI board
rt freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
not a 'waiver', it's a second license. Your statements indicate
that you want to be able to distribute the software under two licenses:
BSD, and a BSD-like license that does not require attribution (which might
be the 'zlib' license).
To achieve this, you'll need to obtain that level of licensing
Thanks for the reply.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 01/10/15 14:27, Zluty Sysel wrote:
>> distributed) product. Given this, let me rephrase: Can we allow these
>> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUT
MENT"
>> file without modifying at all the "(c) TheCompany" in the license
>> itself and therefore not granting any ownership rights to the
>> contributors?
>
> Copyright doesn't work like that. The copyright automatically belongs to
> the author, and you need a
On 02/10/15 14:26, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> What if we accepted contributions from individuals but only
> "acknowledged" their work in a special "THANKS" or "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT"
> file without modifying at all the "(c) TheCompany" in the license
> it
On 02/10/15 10:22, Gervase Markham wrote:
* Pick a project license which does not require attribution (that
basically means a Public Domain dedication); or
Public domain dedication is impossible in Europe. There is some doubt
as whether it is even possible in the USA. The nearest you would
ers do not want to
> reveal that they are using our particular libraries for their (binary
> distributed) product. Given this, let me rephrase: Can we allow these
> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS
> file contains names and email addresses of people outside of ou
at is indeed what I meant.
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
reproduce the copyright notice. Since the holder of the copyright
>> notice is the very same company that makes the source code available
>> to them, would it be possible to selectively waiver this obligation to
>> a particular set of users without infringing on the Op
On 01/10/15 14:27, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> distributed) product. Given this, let me rephrase: Can we allow these
> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS
> file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our
> company? Because that's really all
ce the copyright notice. Since the holder of the copyright
>> notice is the very same company that makes the source code available
>> to them, would it be possible to selectively waiver this obligation to
>> a particular set of users without infringing on the Open Source
>&
r to enforce or not that obligation, leaving us the
> option of not enforcing it with certain customers.
You can't waive ownership rights; you have to assign or license them.
But yes.
> Do we really need additional paperwork? wouldn't it be enough to have
> a license agreement that each cont
Can we allow these
customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS
file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our
company? Because that's really all we're after here, allowing certain
customers not to have to mention that they are using our libraries
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Paul Weber
<singpol...@singpolyma.net> wrote:
>> Can we allow these
>> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS
>> file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our
>> company? Because
Quoting Stephen Paul Weber (singpol...@singpolyma.net):
> If you want to be open source and do not want to require
> attribution, why not consider <http://unlicense.org/> or similar?
Like most recent licences that aim to be more minimal than MIT/X11
License and Fair License (both O
Quoting Zluty Sysel (zluty.sy...@gmail.com):
> What if we accepted contributions from individuals but only
> "acknowledged" their work in a special "THANKS" or "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT"
> file without modifying at all the "(c) TheCompany" in the license
tively waiver this obligation to
> a particular set of users without infringing on the Open Source
> definition or the BSD license itself?
> If the answer was negative, would including the existence of such a
> waiver in the license itself preclude it from being considered an open
> s
. Since the holder of the copyright
notice is the very same company that makes the source code available
to them, would it be possible to selectively waiver this obligation to
a particular set of users without infringing on the Open Source
definition or the BSD license itself?
If the answer
tively waiver this obligation to
> a particular set of users without infringing on the Open Source
> definition or the BSD license itself?
Yes and no.
Since your employer owns the copyright to this software, they of
course have the right to issue any licenses to it that they want. One
such lice
John, an open source license is not a nudum pactum. Consideration abounds in
FOSS. Paraphrasing Wikipedia (the easy source for all law references):
The Jacobsen v. Katzer case is noteworthy in United States copyright law
because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements
an owner to revoke a bare license is inherent, it must be a promise
not to exercise that right, and on what meeting of the minds, what
consideration is that promise founded? Looks like a nudum pactum to me.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Is it not w
ch, they are not supported by consideration and
> can be revoked at the will of the licensor. Most proprietary licenses
> are not like this: the license is provided in exchange for obvious
> consideration in the form of money paid by the licensee.
Without entering into that quagmire (ot
Hi Folks,
I am customising a web application which is dual licensed under GNU GPL Affero
Public License Version 3.0, see below;
github.com/telerim/old-Zhen-CRM/blob/master/LICENSE
<https://github.com/telerim/old-Zhen-CRM/blob/master/LICENSE>
Do my customers need to include link to
The statement 'dual licensed' is illogical here, as only only license is
named (AGPLv3). Since the only license named is the AGPLv3, you'll need to
abide by its terms and obligations, as would anyone who receives a copy of
the software from you. Generally speaking, anyone who is given access
On 9/5/2015 2:24 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Pamela Chestek scripsit:
>
>> I think this statement is a fallacy, but I'm happy to hear other
>> opinions. A license attaches to the intangible copyright, not to the
>> tangible copy of the work you received. So as long as I c
On 9/8/2015 5:14 PM, Kevin Fleming wrote:
> The genesis of my statement (which I purposely left ambiguous because
> IANAL and IANYL and many here are) is that a set of source files that
> do not have any copyright/license statements included and a set that
> do have such statements in
t to) comply with the copyleft
provision, you can't rely on the FOSS license, so you have to comply
with whatever other license you can get, which may include not
disclosing the code. Although that seems kind of silly to require, since
the code is public.
>
>> But a more general G
Pamela Chestek scripsit:
> This is one of my favorite subjects, whether to have a license you need
> to know that it existed at the time you copied or not. I don't think so,
> the copyright owner put the work out there with a promise not to sue, so
> I don't know why I would need
and
can be revoked at the will of the licensor. Most proprietary licenses
are not like this: the license is provided in exchange for obvious
consideration in the form of money paid by the licensee.
The licenses written by Larry truly are contracts, and are exempt from
this view of mine.
> Java BCL, a
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> Bending the words to suit my fancy, a GPL program intentionally posted
> by its author somewhere on the web and freely copied by others is
> thereafter "in transit." I don't see how any author can successfully
> revoke a valid GPL license for ex
fancy, a GPL program intentionally posted by
its author somewhere on the web and freely copied by others is thereafter
"in transit." I don't see how any author can successfully revoke a valid
GPL license for existing copies that she already placed in the wild.
Again you've sent me in
ging your considerable legal attention to this, as I
> find it fascinating :-)
>
> The genesis of my statement (which I purposely left ambiguous because
> IANAL and IANYL and many here are) is that a set of source files that do
> not have any copyright/license statements include
useful to anyone with an interest in
e-voting, in particular decision makers and officials, researchers and
academia, as well as NGOs and providers of e-voting solutions.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https
ed.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
I am large, I contain multitudes.
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
___________
License-discuss mailing list
Lic
John Cowan replied in response to Pam Chestek's comment:
> Consider a work available under GPL+proprietary terms, where you get to do
> non-GPL things if you have paid. Then it would not be enough to show that
> the work was available under a proprietary license to allow you to
Pamela Chestek scripsit:
> I think this statement is a fallacy, but I'm happy to hear other
> opinions. A license attaches to the intangible copyright, not to the
> tangible copy of the work you received. So as long as I can show that
> the same copyrighted work was available und
Just forwarding this discussion on OSL metrics here too.David From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:da...@drrw.info] Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:59 PMTo: CAVO <c...@opensource.org>Subject: Re: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval I would also
Right, this is potentially a 'dual-license' scenario, where the copyright
holders distribute the code under two (or more) distinct licenses, in
separate distributions. If you receive the code under a non-open-source
license, the presence of the same (or similar) code in another location
under
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Chris Ochs <ch...@ochsnet.com> wrote:
> I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github
> repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that
> license in the copy that they release throu
License with it and clearly indicate that the other parts
are under the 3-clause BSD license. Your attorney, or other members of
this list, may have a different interpretation.
Thanks,
BC
--
Ben Cotton
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss
I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github
repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that
license in the copy that they release through this company.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Fleming kevin+...@kpfleming.us
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21
Dear list
I am creating a Web framework around the Open Market’s FastCGI C library which
have a license that looks like this:
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
Software) and its documentation (the Documentation) are
copyrighted by Open Market, Inc (Open Market
On 8/26/15, 3:14 AM, License-discuss on behalf of David Woolley
license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
On 26/08/15 01:45, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
Larry,
Scenario A: I¹m looking for an example in my codebase on how to do Foo
(of course) and I
or had forgotten that I had to be aware there was a
category B module.
I believe another intent of the GPL Is that people should be able to
debug and repair the code that they possess.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
On 25/08/15 22:26, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
The vendors of BAR also offer a commercial license for BAR. If somebody buys
that license, we want them to be able to use FOO under the commercial-friendly
ASL terms without having to give them any extra permission. Right now, those
people
Also, in this situation, the copyright holders of BAR (and thus the
licensors) are the parties that would have standing to pursue any action
against a distributor who distributes a derivative work of BAR without
following the terms of its license (the GPL, or a commercial license). If
someone has
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs ch...@ochsnet.com wrote:
Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time
the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I
think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, if not I'd greatly
appreciate a pointer to the right one.
So I ran into a situation where a company isn't training their employees
very well and is causing all sorts of confusion and in some cases outright
license/copyright violations through what
.
Because this is a derivative work of an MPLv2 program, the resulting Apache
SQRT module is licensed under MPLv2. Every program that invokes this Apache
SQRT module retains its own license, FOSS or proprietary.
/Larry
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday
; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache
Larry,
Please note that ECL is an OSI approved license based on Apache and not
Eclipse. Using ECL in the same sentence as MPL is mildly confusing even
when you (re)define the acronym in the previous
reasons:
1) it is tedious to *maintain per-line license* information in a source file
2) it seriously *limits the ability to perform refactoring* of code
Thanks for trying, but why did you bother to write me about something that
the ASF board has already decided for you?
You didn't accurately
automatically
becomes ASL if it no longer depends on GPL code, e.g. through
alternative license agreements with the vendors of the respective code.
I see nothing wrong with it, but you really do need an appropriate lawyer
to give you advice on this one. Drop some money on Larry Rosen, if
you
for re-using code snippets
without complying with the license terms.
From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.commailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com
Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.commailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 3:11 PM
To: Nigel H. Tzeng nigel.tz
to refactor stuff and move code
between modules if necessary.
So part of this situation is covered by a contributor license agreement which
says that everything that goes into the GPLed modules is essentially covered by
ASL terms and conditions.
However, the CLA we get isn't handed down to the users
On 22/08/15 17:00, Nuno Brito wrote:
Is there something else missing to be considered or included?
Country. This can affect the copyright regime that applies to that author.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https
and source forms of a work are, from a copyright
perspective, the exact same work subject to the exact same FOSS license. Stop
wasting time trying to distinguish them legally.
· Apache is committed to FOSS. For that reason, we should always
publish source code. Binaries are a convenience
Larry,
Please note that ECL is an OSI approved license based on Apache and not
Eclipse. Using ECL in the same sentence as MPL is mildly confusing even when
you (re)define the acronym in the previous paragraph when using EPL would be
more clear.
As far as differentiating between source
An Apache member wrote that this ASF license objective is firmly held: To
allow our customers to redistribute with closed-source modifications.
That objective remains completely and always enforceable for ALv2 code. It
is not enforceable for Eclipse (ECL) components or MPLv2 components
An Apache member wrote that this ASF license objective is firmly held: To allow
our customers to redistribute with closed-source modifications.
That objective remains completely and always enforceable for ALv2 code. It is
not enforceable for Eclipse (ECL) components or MPLv2 components
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you because I have a doubt regarding GNU/MIT terms of use,
which I hope you can clarify: what happens if someone creates a new system by
using a combination of (more than one) existing softwares covered by the
GNU/MIT public license (or other free software
In that situation, the person who produced the new work will *not* be able
to restrict copy, use, sale, etc. of the new work, since it is a derived
work of the GPL- and/or MIT-licensed original works. The combined work's
license will necessarily need to be compatible with (if not identical
profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 18/06/15 14:42, Kevin Fleming wrote:
In that situation, the person who produced the new work will *not* be
able to restrict copy, use, sale, etc. of the new work, since it is a
derived work of the GPL- and/or MIT-licensed original works. The
combined work's license will necessarily need
license (or other free software
licenses)? Will he be able to i) _commercialize _ this new
Suggesting that open source and commercializable are mutually exclusive
won't get you much sympathy on this list. That's even true for strong
copyleft.
Even Microsoft have open source software
From the process it seems I can't submit for review a license I don't
steward, but I'd be interested in comments on
http://www.etalab.gouv.fr/licence-ouverte-open-licence as it's used in
http://thesaurus.cerl.org which is a good resource for Wikipedia and
Wikidata.
Nemo
licence.
Regards,
Max
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License
with
Rapid are themselves open source then you'd probably want some form of
custom OSD-compatible software licence.
Regards,
Max
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
Thanks John,
You'll be pleased (as am I) that all of Rapid runs nicely under IcedTea!
Now I'm just grappling with the extent of the linking that a Rapid app has to
the platform...
Gareth
- Reply message -
From: co...@ccil.org
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: gareth.edwa...@rapid
Gareth, it all depends on what is a work based on the Program. See GPLv2 §0,
part of which is copied below. Opinions on that definition differ.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by
this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
is whether these files are or can be distributed
to anybody, or whether they just live on the Rapid server and nowhere else.
If they are distributed separately, they are OSS or not depending on how
the author has licensed them. If they have an OSS license, then people
can copy and modify
, according to the GPL.
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
If you choose GPLv3, then anyone down stream are required to use GPLv3.
That's the requirement of the license.
However, in general, using open source does not mean your program will have
to be open source. You are, however, constrained by the license of the open
source software you choose to use
want some form of custom
OSD-compatible software licence.
Regards,
Max
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
, although
I can't name a licence like that off the top of my head.
I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license
as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make
it not Open Source.
With respect to point two, you'd need to show that the apps
On 11/06/15 11:44, Cinly Ooi wrote:
If you choose GPLv3, then anyone down stream are required to use GPLv3.
That's the requirement of the license.
However, in general, using open source does not mean your program will
have to be open source.
That depends on what the program does
anyway. If it can, then remember this: This
footer always triumph yours.
On 11 June 2015 at 13:01, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 11/06/15 11:44, Cinly Ooi wrote:
If you choose GPLv3, then anyone down stream are required to use GPLv3.
That's the requirement of the license
On 11/06/2015 20:47, co...@ccil.org wrote:
I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license
as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make
it not Open Source.
Possibly, and I would have thought that it would require more than a
mere copyright
Hello,
I have a question regarding the copyright holders of a software under the
MIT license.
My case is this one :
- Some software was developped under the MIT license in Company1 in 2014
- The software is now (2015) developped by Company2 and will be released
under the same MIT license
were motivated by concrete requests,
not just well-meaning conjecture. None of us have the time to make up
unnecessary process enhancements.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
___
License-discuss mailing list
)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
.)
This seems like a generally good thing regardless of law and venue?
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
At our last face-to-face meeting, the OSI Board discussed the topic of
FLOSS licenses targeted at specific languages and jurisdictions. As you can
imagine, with the interest in reducing license proliferation, the
conversation was quite lively. However, if we want open source to be a
truly
of FLOSS
licenses targeted at specific languages and jurisdictions. As you can
imagine, with the interest in reducing license proliferation, the
conversation was quite lively. However, if we want open source to be a truly
worldwide movement, it seems unreasonable to insist that English be the only
With regard to language: wouldn't it be more aligned with reducing license
proliferation to work with existing license stewards to encourage
authorized translations? Have there been license submissions in foreign
languages yet, and have those submitters been resistant to the idea
On 06/05/2015 12:13 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
With regard to jurisdiction: do we have evidence that existing licenses
can't be enforced as per the intent of the license stewards in certain
juridictions because they use terms differently, or there are assumed
defaults in that jurisdiction
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
petabytes of data, currently, I can
safely assume that Apache Hadoop uses a standard Apache License.
If this proposal takes place, I'll have to look at the license and
notice for every file in Hadoop, during the project planning stage, as
well as during the coding.
For a project planner
is used in the OSD. The word infect carries much
unwelcome baggage. I welcome OSI's license-discuss@ efforts to define these
terms.
This question is not specific to the Apache Software Foundation policy on this
matter or about NOTICE files. ASF is not the only one aggregating ALv2 software
601 - 700 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
