On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org> wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>
>>> >>My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
See below ...
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:51:10PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Forwarding /Larry
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
> To: ftf-le...@fsfeurope
de written under the
Apache License, combine it with code licensed under the GPL (regardless of
whether the code is explicitly included or only dynamically linked via a Java
JAR file) and then distribute that under a proprietary license. Furthermore,
links such as this [2] by the FSF explicitly cal
On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>>is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>I couldn't find an answer onhttps://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
The first item in the Open Source Definition seems to address this.
1. Free Redistribution
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
Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>> I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
Larry Rosen suggested:
> The obvious answe
r
intern project :-)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
here a specific
contributor or company that owns it?
If all that Apache creates are aggregations, then ASF doesn't own copyrights to
the individual contributions. We're like a magazine, publishing multiple
articles by contributors together in one release under the overall Apache
once popular all over Europe.
Cheers,
Stefan
On 05/03/2015 09:51 PM, Nuno Brito wrote:
Hi Stefan,
I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that
mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they
are accepted by the OSI.
From that perspective, you li
Hi Stefan, I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they are accepted by the OSI. From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the case is generic. Being generic, I looke
and I would want to things to be
enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected
etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using
the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software
incorporating the database must be under an open
versions of the database (extended, error corrected etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. The second bit is the tricky one, I
Stephen Paul Weber writes:
> Hey all,
>
> I've been thinking recently about the issue that Creative Commons does not
> specify a copyleft license which would require the distribution of "source
> form" for art that has a source form seperate from its distributi
Hey all,
I've been thinking recently about the issue that Creative Commons does not
specify a copyleft license which would require the distribution of "source
form" for art that has a source form seperate from its distribution form.
Examples could be: images/videos render
relevant
cases. It is not part of the Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source
Definition. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the definition of
"derivative work." It is based here in this thread on obscure quotes from
various websites or opinions about "license author's int
Jim Jagielski scripsit:
> So, at least according to
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html,
> the FSF considers LGPL as weak copyleft.
Looking at the uses of 'weak' on that page suggests that to the FSF,
at least, a weak copyleft license is one that permits the
Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t!
r...@linuxmafia.com-- @cinemasins
McQ! (4x80)
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 09/04/15 15:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example,
> when describing WxWidgets:
>
> Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in
> special circumstances.
>
> So, at least according t
Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example,
when describing WxWidgets:
Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in
special circumstances.
So, at least according to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html,
the FSF considers LGPL as weak
-- Maximilian
On 07/04/2015 19:40, Simon Phipps wrote:
> It looks like you may consider LGPL to be a weak copyleft license; my
> apologies if you don't! But if you do...
>
> I do not believe the LGPL to be a "weak copyleft" license. "Strong
> copyleft" i
It looks like you may consider LGPL to be a weak copyleft license; my
apologies if you don't! But if you do...
I do not believe the LGPL to be a "weak copyleft" license. "Strong
copyleft" implies that the scope of the required reciprocity is the source
needed to crea
at you did with your application.
The GPL defines a covered work to be, "either the unmodified Program
or a work based on the Program." Later in the license a distinction
is drawn between that and "mere aggregation". The intent is that
distributing your program + the covered GPLe
t; copyleft? And can anyone here identify
anything in copyright law or cases that allow this distinction in the
meaning of "derivative work"?
/Larry
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensourc
s like a statement about what might be likely to happen,
rather than what ought to happen. From the second cited piece, starting
from the very first sentence:
> How bad is the current copyright system? Should we push for abolition,
> or just radical reform?
>
> Both.
Sounds lik
nathon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
o the proprietary one.
Copyright law may remain on the books formally, but it will fade away in
practice, atrophied from disuse.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
example, unless I've misunderstood him.
The sky appears to be a pale blue near him [3], and I understand he was
sufficiently well respected to serve for three years on the board of the
OSI.
Tim
<><
[1] http://questioncopyright.org/promise
[2] http://questioncopyright.org/shorter_better
[3] http://questioncopyright.org/team/karl
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
which
might be derivative works of open source software covered by the
licence), it wouldn't make those binary blobs into open source software,
but it would still be a copyleft licence.
Tim
<><
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
but I do think it's reasonable for them to demand a
> promise not to sue in exchange for a promise not to sue).
I'm sorry, but _who_ exactly are you saying is advocating abolition of
copyright? And what colour is the sky in their vicinity?
[1] Yes, I was trying to be amusing, there. Sorr
ally
since my pics are nothing particularly special. Mostly I mark them so
that the pictures of any other kids that might be in the pic are not used
without their parent¹s permission in some kind of commercial derivative
work.
___
License-discuss mailin
d this before, or are interested in trying it, I'd
follow with interest!
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
, how much detail would you require
them to publish about the design of the hardware they're selling? In
what way should they publish it, and how long should they make sure such
a publication remains available?
Tim
<><
[1] https://singpolyma.net/2015/01/electronic-device-freedom/
_
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 18:13 +, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz wrote:
> The Simple Public License (SimPL) is a lawyer-written, OSI-approved, plain
> language and relatively short copyleft license. It's available on the OSI
> website.
Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't seen t
s CC-BY-SA also non-copyleft?
>
No, the ShareAlike aspect of CC-BY-SA makes it copyleft.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ary can or should reasonably aim to
achieve.
(It _is_ outside the scope of CC's aims, seems to me.)
Which was my point in my prior thread, and I could swear it was pretty
clear the first time, albeit I don't mind stating it twice. (Twice is
plenty; stepping back now.)
______
formal licence.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
's your point? I believe Nigel's audience of concern
was reasonable people seeking to understand a legal instrument, not
rules-lawyering proprietary software businesspeople.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
htt
or involved.
> A more complete manifesto can be found in
> <http://creativecommons.org/about/reform>.
Which would be irrelevant to Nigel's point.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
can be found in
<http://creativecommons.org/about/reform>.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
based on the full licence, not the lay summary.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
the great epigram that
Hardin's 'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent' has become,
but it'll do.)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
ld have been.)
*cough*MySQL AB*cough*
Is it odd that the only time I am inclined to use GPL is when I wish to
protect certain competitive advantages from potential competitors?
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://pr
s, somewhat less provocatively, that
the only actual meaning of any legal instrument lies in what it _does_,
and that the views and intentions of the instrument's author are
irrelevant to the matter at hand -- rather like if I drop a heavy book
about Jainism on your foot. ;->
_____
the presumption that the use of GPL implies support for the FSF
viewpoint. A perspective that the FSF fosters as evidence of how much
they dominate the FOSS world as opposed to say BSD/Apache.
Yes, WE all know this is not true.
_______
L
at the CC 'human-readable' summaries are not
> the operative texts, though.
Like the other CC licences,
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ stresses at the top:
This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the
license.
http://creativecommons.or
l."
Rosenlaw & Einschlag (www.rosenlaw.com)
-Original Message-
From: Maxthon Chan [mailto:xcvi...@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence
I have a gut feeling that this thread ha
hamed at how often I use a thesaurus. I mean bashful.
Rick Moen Embarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t!
r...@linuxmafia.com-- @cinemasins
McQ! (4x80)
_______
License-discuss ma
without a political/social agenda? I'll await this
> >with interest.
>
> CC-BY-SA
>
> Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and
> used.
Fair enough. I honestly wish people wouldn't get hung up on the
manifestos, as they are NOOPs in t
ing then? Or do we need a specific CC
>> variant or addendum for code?
>>
> For what it's worth Creative Commons says not to:
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F
>
> --
> Ben Cotton
> ___
se_to_software.3F
--
Ben Cotton
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
glish (or whatever)
>>> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all
>>> like with the FSF/GPL.
>>
>> A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda? I'll await this
>> with interest.
>
> CC-BY-SA
>
> Suffi
ome debatable political/social agenda behind it all
>>> like with the FSF/GPL.
>>
>> A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda? I'll await this
>> with interest.
>
> CC-BY-SA
>
> Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely acc
(or whatever)
>> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all
>> like with the FSF/GPL.
>
>A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda? I'll await this
>with interest.
CC-BY-SA
Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, wi
gested modification to the BSD licences sounds like it would
do); I just want to be able to defend against other people who might try
to sue me for such omissions.
Also, I owe a correction to this list. I'm not sure where I got the
idea that the Open Publication Licence was copyleft, but on fur
debatable political/social agenda behind it all like
>>with the FSF/GPL.
The Simple Public License (SimPL) is a lawyer-written, OSI-approved, plain
language and relatively short copyleft license. It's available on the OSI
website.
___________
/opencontent.org/openpub/
Tim
<><
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
discuss
___________
License-discuss mailing l
t this
with interest.
--
May those that love us love us; and those that don't love us, may
God turn their hearts; and if he doesn't turn their hearts, may
he turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.
___________
License-discuss mai
Hmm… Would OSI itself be such an organisation?
Since my personal preference of BSDL, I would like to see people writing
BSDL-like clauses for different purposes (like my proposed BSDL-like copyleft
clause) and a developer can just cherry-pick license features they want by
choosing individual
features to achieve the
desire of the developer in a commonly understood way.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
; It should be as easy as SC-BY-SA 1.0 with a clear english (or whatever)
> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all
> like with the FSF/GPL.
>
> _______
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensou
me debatable political/social agenda behind it all
like with the FSF/GPL.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
SD and the
FSD. Even though it has the can't-be-proprietized aspect of copyleft,
the lack of source code would make it non-copyleft.
Thanks,
BC
--
Ben Cotton
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.
h seems difficult to avoid in a
> very short, non-weak copyleft licence. I'd be keen to be proven wrong
> on that point, though.
Simply add "or under the GNU General Purpose License (any version)".
In practice, the GPL is the only major copyleft software commons.
--
J
derivative work of this
work must be accompanied with the corresponding, human-preferred source code.
3. Redistribution of any derivative work must be also licensed under the same
license as this work.
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 06:24, Tim Makarios wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:24
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:24 -0400, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> That's pretty much what the Sleepycat license does. Here's a very lightly
> edited version of its additional clause:
>
> Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information
> on how to obtain
others by glancing at the text in a browser) is the Open
Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
measures at nearly 800 words.
[1] http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Tim
<><
___________
License-discuss mailing l
Quoting jonathon (jonathon.bl...@gmail.com):
> On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
> > Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
> > measures at nearly 800 words.
>
> Isn't the DWTFYL license shorter?
> (I can't override the NSFW se
What does copyleft mean?
The purpose of a copyleft provision in my mind is to make it so that
changes get contributed back. While it is clear that the Sleepycat
license attempts to do so, it does not stop source being available for
a nominal fee under an additional copyright license chosen by
The wtfpl both isn't copyleft, nor is it a valid copyright license for
software.
On Mar 30, 2015 4:23 PM, "jonathon" wrote:
> On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
> > Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
> measures at nearly 800
On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
> Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count measures
> at nearly 800 words.
Isn't the DWTFYL license shorter?
(I can't override the NSFW search on my browser, to find a copy of that
license.)
jonathon
signature
scripsit:
>
>> Is it favorable to add a copy left clause into 2BSDL to make it copyleft?
>> "You must provide the source code, in its human-preferred format, with
>> this work or any derivatives of this work you created when
>> redistributing."
>
> That'
tty much what the Sleepycat license does. Here's a very lightly
edited version of its additional clause:
Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information
on how to obtain complete source code for the licensed software
and any accompanying software that uses the licensed so
Marier wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-30 at 20:40:56, Tim Makarios wrote:
>> What's the shortest copyleft licence people on this list know of?
>
> You may want to look at copyleft-next since it is an effort to create an
> effective but short copyleft license:
>
> htt
On 2015-03-30 at 20:40:56, Tim Makarios wrote:
> What's the shortest copyleft licence people on this list know of?
You may want to look at copyleft-next since it is an effort to create an
effective but short copyleft license:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next
The latest release (0
blication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
measures at nearly 800 words.
[1] http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Tim
<><
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
reverse engineering. In your words: it is a grey area. But - as its' opposite -
you claimed that distributing said application and library together triggers
the copyright license provisions.
(3) Based on these two alternatives you summarizes, that my "paper indicates
that dynamic linkin
Most open source software licenses do not control usage in any way, so they
have no impact on the scenario you have imposed. The AGPL is likely the
most notable exception, since it specifically defines this scenario as
constituting a license-controlled event.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:07 PM
roject involves transcoding video files on the cloud, hard dubbing the
> subtitles and emitting multiple formats. The service used a version of libav
> that is linked in a non-distributable fashion. Will that cause me any trouble?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
onathon [mailto:jonathon.bl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:53 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents
All:
Need some help.
Software was privately created.
Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0.
If you want to chan
;
>or just shoot their patents down completely.
That costs US$10,000,000 per patent.
jonathon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
follow that lawyer's advice.
IOW, release only after discussion with a neutral lawyer, and then only
if said lawyer approves.
Sounds good to me.
jonathon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______
License-discuss mailing lis
butor has an
>>> obligation to the community to disclose what he or she knows. Secrets serve
>>> nobody. Disclose what you know. No negatives.
>>>
>>> AS-IS and NO WARRANTY with respect to patents would then be appropriate.
>>>
>>> /Larry
&
subtitles and emitting multiple formats. The service used a version of libav
that is linked in a non-distributable fashion. Will that cause me any trouble?
Sent from my iPhone
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
gt;>
>> In many situations, such as in Apache and W3C, a contributor has an
>> obligation to the community to disclose what he or she knows. Secrets serve
>> nobody. Disclose what you know. No negatives.
>>
>> AS-IS and NO WARRANTY with respect to patents would then
--
> From: jonathon [mailto:jonathon.bl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:53 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents
>
> All:
>
> Need some help.
>
> Software was privately created.
>
ts serve nobody.
Disclose what you know. No negatives.
AS-IS and NO WARRANTY with respect to patents would then be appropriate.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: jonathon [mailto:jonathon.bl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:53 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [
Developer needs to pay a lawyer, I'm thinking...
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:52 PM, jonathon wrote:
>
> All:
>
> Need some help.
>
> Software was privately created.
> Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0.
> If you want to change the license, for
n / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. --Greg Baker
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@
All:
Need some help.
Software was privately created.
Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0.
If you want to change the license, for your comments, do so.
Issue:
Developer is using systems, methods, and techniques that were described
in the literature more than three decades ago (in
ubby guy in front of the camera who
has complained about standards organizations a lot. I also speak in this
talk about the Oracle v. Google case and about Apache's experience with
Java.
May it spark conversation!
/Larry Rosen
___
License
fect of «by breaking this
seal, you accept the enclosed license».
A later court rulling stated that the license in such cases where invalid/not
enforceable because the licensee could not read the terms of the enclosed
contract before agreeing to it. The holder of the software copy did therefore
But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of being
printed. And the printed "for promotional use" on cds was held not an
enforceable license.
Pam
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
-- Original message--
From: John Cowan
Date: Wed, Mar 11,
es.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
How comes city and country to be filled with drones and rogues, our highways
with hackers, and all places with sloth and wickedness?
--W. Blith, Eng. Improver Improved, 1652
____
NC State Bar's
Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
I marvel at the creature: so secret and so sly as he is, to come sporting
in the pool before our very window. Does he think that Men sleep without
watch all night?--Faramir
___
License
ost the US Supreme Court's Quanta decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.
I'll let any law professors on the mailing list further elucidate the latter
question.
-Original Message-
From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org
[mailto:licens
as applied to copyrighted articles!
Lawrence Rosen
"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
-Original Message-
From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subjec
Court first applied the
“first sale” doctrine) or in §109(a)s predecessor provision, which
Congress enacted a year later. See supra, [1364] at ___, 185 L. Ed. 2d,
at 405.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363-1364 (U.S. 2013)
> If the license were
> printed on the cov
[side issue below]
John Cowan wrote:
> In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract.
I'm not sure that's true for "sublicensed" software. That's why I objected
to the sublicensing provision in a recently-approved license.
Most licenses nowadays fortu
licensee's consent to the contract. If the license were
printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle
trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance
of the license.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
The Penguin shal
801 - 900 of 5227 matches
Mail list logo
