I'd be really interested to learn more about the incident in question.
Knowing what made the BSD 3-Clause insufficient might help improve the
language.
Constraining the license text to only include the words in the Oxford
Advanced Learners Dictionary sounds like a fun challenge. I'll see what
the Creative Commons licences are done.
There is a plain language version to try and give the general public an
idea of the meaning, but there is also a legal code version, which is
the one intended to be used by the courts.
___
License-discuss mailing
English word defined
by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) so this is my first attempt.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2015, at 02:00, Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote:
I have used a license like this for my open
The possible need for re-licensing under a different open source license is
one the biggest reasons I am generally an advocate for CLAs (with an
appropriate community-based governance organization like the ASF). I find
the cautionary tale of the Mozilla Relicensing Effort [1] illuminating
On 01/18/2015 02:57 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
As Allison noted, most OSI approved licenses can be used for inbound
use, but we do not take a position on that issue in approving
licenses. [..] Thus, the approval of a license by OSI as meeting the
criteria of the OSD does not reflect a review
On 01/18/2015 11:14 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
The relevant aspect here, seems to me, is that OSI's criteria for open
source licenses *include* whether the *license used inbound* is giving
rights to anyone receiving the software, as set out in the OSD.
Anyone includes the project, a legal entity
.
I cannot imagine any open source license (other than un-templated ones with
hard-coded licensors) that *cannot* work as an inbound license. Does
anyone have counterexamples?
I totally support campaigning for inbound=outbound and DCO,
What does DCO mean in this context?
--
John Cowan
the policy with each commit. It's about half-way down the
page on:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Allison
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
On 20/01/15 19:48, Engel Nyst wrote:
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an OSI
approved license(s) doesn't seem to give the permissions necessary,
within the bounds of the license, for anyone to combine one's project
from different sources and distribute it.
One
license,
the project can't apply that patch without violating the license.
I'm not sure I understand correctly. Isn't that intended behavior of the
license? (assuming there was claim of endorsement)
If I reuse code under BSD license, then I have to comply with the license.
(That Foo submitted
their preferences, and very often their preferences are
not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirky
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
your point.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
You know, you haven't stopped talking since I came here. You must
have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.
--Rufus T. Firefly
___
License-discuss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/01/15 14:14, Engel Nyst wrote:
CLA stands for contributor *license* agreement. It's a non-exclusive
license, plus some stuff. A non-exclusive licensee doesn't have standing
for license enforcement. One needs to be copyright holder
On 01/20/2015 10:46 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. How is the open source license not good?
How doesn't it give permissions set out in OSD? And WHY was it approved
if it doesn't comply?
You're missing the point. The open source license is good, does give the
permissions
On 01/20/2015 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
I wrote up an example of an open source license that has different
legal effects when used inbound and outbound, but I've deleted it to
avoid taking this thread down a rabbit hole.
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using
anyone reverse engineer the binaries of they already have the
source)?
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 01/17/2015 10:21 AM, Engel Nyst wrote:
Reviewing doesn't seem to have anything to do with it indeed, but other
than that I'm not sure I understand the difference you feel important
here. An open source license is inbound or outbound depending only
on the position /of the speaker
On 01/17/2015 01:57 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
OSI's criteria for open source licenses doesn't include any review of
whether the *license used inbound* would be respectful of developers'
rights and desires for the use of their code, encourage healthy
collaboration in the community of developers
to be outbound (to
whom?). That alone contributes to confusion about open source licensing.
While I agree with what you are saying (there is no reason why any open
source license can't be used as a contributor agreement, and some projects
actually work that way), there is a fundamental difference between
. An open source license is inbound or outbound depending only
on the position /of the speaker/. There is no absolute direction, it's
relative to the speaker.
Am I looking at some code I wrote, or am I looking at code someone else
wrote. Why is that relevant?
There is probably no way to make
On 01/16/2015 07:44 AM, Zluty Sysel wrote:
Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software
provided in binary form under this license is prohibited.
I'm wondering why you want this clause. Is the software in source form
available under BSD or do you intend to make
John Cowan wrote:
Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code;
Do you mean grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of
the license?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code;
Do you mean grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of
the license?
Well, for some licenses. The BSD licenses don't appear to require
any sort of acceptance: they just say We
don't. That open
licenses are meant to be outbound (to whom?). That alone
contributes to confusion about open source licensing.
While I agree with what you are saying (there is no reason why any
open source license can't be used as a contributor agreement, and
some projects actually work
Hi there,
I was wondering if adding a clause to prevent reverse engineering to the
standard 3-clause BSD license would violate any of the open source
definition tenets.
The additional clause would read something like this:
Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software
it clear that the OSI
reviews *outbound* open source licenses, and not *inbound* agreements of
any kind.
Allison
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
it clear that OSI
reviews *outbound* open source licenses, and not *inbound* agreements.
It also doesn't review the use of open source licenses as inbound=outbound.
Allison
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
On Friday 16. January 2015 13.44, Zluty Sysel wrote:
I was wondering if adding a clause to prevent reverse engineering to the
standard 3-clause BSD license would violate any of the open source
definition tenets.
The additional clause would read something like this:
Reverse engineering
Hello license-discuss,
OSI FAQ page has an entry on CLAs: What are contributor license
agreements? Are they the same thing with open licenses?.
As a historical note, according to webarchive, the entry has appeared in
June-July 2013, although there is no mention on it on (public) mailing
lists
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote:
Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s
source code, but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a
different license.
What do you mean by use? Do you mean use a different license for
project B when distributed as a whole
On 2015-01-10 at 12:16:04, Michael Bradley wrote:
Would that be in compliance with the “retain” language in clause #1 of the
3-Clause BSD license? Is there any case law to that effect or to the
contrary? References to legal write-ups on this question (or similar)
would be appreciated
Suppose Project A is licensed under 3-Clause BSD, and includes that license
text at the head of each of its source code files.
Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s source code,
but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a different license. In an effort
to avoid
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote:
Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s source code,
but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a different license. In an effort
to avoid confusion, Project B has that different license text at the head of
each of its
On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
NOTE 1: None of these license texts should be used as a license until
further notice! These texts are works
On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
There is no such thing as a public domain licence. The documents are
combinations of an attempt to abandon
Hi,
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
https://github.com/asaunders/public-domain-customized
https://github.com/asaunders/public-domain-customized/blob/master/Custom%20Dedication:%20Open
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other
curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your
question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?
Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: Yes and no.
Yes, it requires
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf
of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative
Commons friends your question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?
[snip]
Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates
Sorry, I meant CC-SA throughout! Brain hiccup happened. /Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 5:41 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: 'Kat Walsh'
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Wikipedia
on strategy with Larry, of course. But if one is
convinced that voting software needs to be open source as a fundamental
matter of transparency for the voters, then there's no need to choose a
license which permits the addition of proprietary bits. In fact, it's an
anti-goal.
Gerv
, of course. But if one is
convinced that voting software needs to be open source as a fundamental
matter of transparency for the voters, then there's no need to choose a
license which permits the addition of proprietary bits. In fact, it's an
anti-goal.
Gerv
are not mutually exclusive.
Gerv
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
To: License-Discuss@ [This email is CC-BY.]
The California Association of Voting Officials (CAVO) asked me to help them
evaluate FOSS licenses for election software. Below is my article for the
CAVO newsletter.
You can read the entire CAVO newsletter at
http://www.cavo-us.org/Newsletter
Larry,
Interesting article, and timely since I am in the process of determining if GPL
V3 is the proper license to recommend for some work we are doing.
I’m not certain that I would agree that GPL V3 is the right license to advocate
for CAVO given that the original copyright holder retains
Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide*, and
the publication of that project in its new home on the Internet at
copyleft.org. This new site will not only provide a venue for those who
constantly update and improve the Comprehensive Tutorial, but is also
now home to a collaborative
Hi Brian,
OpenSource.org is not a legal services organization and can't give you
legal advice.
http://opensource.org/faq#legal-advice
If the MIT license software is not *distributed* *in* your software or
*with* your software (as libraries) either in source or binary form,
then the MIT license
Hi, all-
Spam on this list (and license-review) continues to be a problem. If anyone
would be willing to step up and help out with moderation, I'd really
appreciate it - please contact me off-list. Thanks!
Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
License
/1409231b2898080f6e
___
Osi mailing list
o...@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/osi
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
Tracy,
Thank you for contacting the OSI. I have forwarded on your question to
our License Discuss list. Perhaps someone on that list has a suggestion
for you.
Best of luck,
Patrick
On 08/05/2014 05:19 PM, tracyml...@gmail.com wrote:
Tracy M Lord (tracyml...@gmail.com) sent a message using
Greg,
Thank you for reaching out to the OSI. I have forwarded your question on
to the License Discuss email list. You may also want to look over
http://opensource.org/faq
Best of luck,
Patrick
On 09/30/2014 05:41 PM, g...@discountpos.com wrote:
greg boerner (g...@discountpos.com) sent
Thank you for contacting the OSI. I have forwarded on your question to
the License Discuss list as someone there might have an answer for you.
Best of luck,
Patrick
On 09/19/2014 03:40 AM, bibhudutta.p...@gmail.com wrote:
BIBHUDUTTA PANI (bibhudutta.p...@gmail.com) sent a message using
Masson [mailto:mas...@opensource.org]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:09 AM
To: tracyml...@gmail.com; License Discuss
Cc: o...@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] OS license for
seeds (!)
Tracy,
Thank you for contacting the OSI. I have forwarded on your
Dear Eleftherios,
Especially for the European licensors, the European Commission's
www.Joinup.eu site has published a Licence Wizard
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/license-wizard/home that could help
you for finding your way in the licensing jungle.
Best,
P-E.
2014-10-20 20:06 GMT+02
As a follow up note below, the reason for the question is that we are
developing a software product by using certain OSI products governed by the MIT
License. The question is whether under that license, we need to provide
attribution (i.e., including the copyright and permissions statement
as a result of
this E-mail.*
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tarun Dixit tarun.di...@girnarsoft.com
Date: 23 September 2014 19:13
Subject: submission type: Approval license name: MIT for ExploreJaipur
Project
To: license-review-subscr...@opensource.org
Cc: Sachin Pareek sachin.par
On 24/09/14 09:25, Tarun Dixit wrote:
/submission type: Approval/
/Rationale:/Clearly state rationale for a new license
/license name: MIT//
/
There is already an approved licence with that name.
If it were not approved, you would not be able to submit it because you
do not control its
On 06/29/2014 07:39 AM, Joe Kua wrote:
Is this better than the original MIT license ? It has patent grants
which MIT lacks.
At a cursory reading, it looks like I'd expect a first draft of MIT with
patents to be like. Please note: IANAL, TINLA, not affiliated with OSI.
An issue with simply
I'm not sure if anyone got back to Giorgio on this. I am sure he would
appreciate this group's thoughts.
Thanks,
Patrick
Original Message
Subject:[Osi] [General enquiries] Type of License and Keylock
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:35:13 + (UTC)
From: gior
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org
wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone got back to Giorgio on this. I am sure he would
appreciate this group's thoughts.
Thanks,
Patrick
Original Message Subject: [Osi] [General enquiries]
Type of License
Hi,
Is this better than the original MIT license ? It has patent grants
which MIT lacks.
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, and under
any and all copyright
* Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com [2013-11-22 00:23]:
It seems that OSL 1.1, 2.0, and AFL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 are not
accessible at http://opensource.org/licenses/[SPDX name]. As far as I
know/find, they have been approved.
Luis said in
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss
On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want. Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
while not offering a download themselves for their users.
I find it difficult to work out why someone would use
now they have to
acknowledge you, adn let you see their improvements.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Woolley
for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want. Including
to retain the privileged position of
being able to charge for their code. If they include the upgrades as
is, they are now downstream of an AGPL contributor and must use the AGPL
rules.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
Free / open source software like freedom, not like free beer :-)
No FOSS license prohibits making some money out of all the work done...
P-E
2014-06-10 7:51 GMT+02:00 ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun
On 6/9/2014 10:11 PM, ldr ldr wrote:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
Yes.
The primary reason most FLOSS is distributed gratis, is because FLOSS
stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license
.
I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want. Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
while not offering a download themselves for their users.
-- Kuno.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License
Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
___
License-discuss mailing
as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2014 02:57 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
Possible big JavaScript campaign victory, please investigate.
Original Message From: Reincke, Karsten
k.rein...@telekom.de Sent: February 3, 2014 10:58:53 AM EST To:
license
software, though.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
.
The fact that many older licenses are silent/ambiguous about c, and were
written in a time when c didn't exist, is a different problem.
henrik
On 3 May 2014 23:14, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Richard Fontana scripsit:
When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed
rights, so #7
is not triggered.
You could argue that selling is a patent right, and OSD #1 is violated
if a patent restricts you from selling software distributed under CC0.
But #1 reads to me as a restriction on the license, which contains no
such provision.
If the open-source nature of CC0
to the private sector for revenue.
That is so perverse I cannot even formulate words to explain how I
feel about that...
Wrt the original question it seems there are good grounds to ask
federal employees to pony up an actual open source license, especially
one of those that includes a patent license. That said
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
I continue to think that our CC0 decision was wrong insofar as it can
be read as saying that the CC0 license is not an open-source (as opposed
to OSI Certified) license. There may be reasons not to certify it,
but not to deny that it is open source
certified license conforms to the OSD.
In my opinion, this is a particularly important function because of
firms that publish deliberately deceptive licensing, such as sneaking
extremely problematic and intrusive badgeware clauses, having the effect
of greatly deterring all third-party commercial reuse
packages) are not OSI certified. At the same time, Debian
has over 37k packages and what stats we have from blackduck and other
sources make me comfortable in guessing that safely more than 99% and
probably more than 99,9% of Debian packages do use an OSI certified
license. From this point of view I'd say
it
has created. It can and does hold copyright that has been transferred
to it by other creators, and it can and does acquire patents.
That is what makes the NOSA 1.3 important as an OSI certified license.
It allows any U.S. government agency to open-source its works fully.
John keeps asking
) is as good a legal document
as any, even sans digital signature. --me
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Simon Phipps wrote in relation to CC0:
... Had they persisted, I believe OSI would have needed to face the issue
of how licenses treat patents.
There really aren't too many alternative ways for FOSS licenses to treat
patents:
* The FOSS license does not contain a patent
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
* The FOSS license does not contain a patent license.
The issue appears to be whether there is a difference for OSI purposes
between licenses that withhold patent rights and those which are silent
about them. My view is that there is not, but others disagree
'there is no copyright to license').
Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0
inconsistency problem in a different form. Consider the case of public
domain source code created by a US government employee, having features
covered by a patent held by the US government.
The patent
that many US government lawyers dealing with open source seem to assume
that 17 USC 105 operates worldwide (this sometimes comes up in the form
of a refusal to sign CLAs because 'there is no copyright to license').
Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0
inconsistency
Liberman
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
not
be compliant with the OSD? E.g., would its open-sourceness be
materially different from an MIT-licensed work?
When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7 as
suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant in
a license would not be Open Source
Richard Fontana scripsit:
When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7
as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant
in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised
when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depends
consult your attorney.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
?
Stirring the pot,
-Karl
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
example seems problematic.
-- Kuno.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
.
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317. I've found
that many US government lawyers dealing with open source seem to assume
that 17 USC 105 operates worldwide (this sometimes comes up in the form
of a refusal to sign CLAs because 'there is no copyright to license').
Also
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 23/04/14 16:59, Buck Golemon wrote:
and another
package's license says modified versions cannot contain additional
attribution requirements.
I don't know of any licenses which say that. Can you point
libraries or
platforms used by the one I directly invoke? A good example is JBoss. It uses
many other open source libraries with various OSS licensing terms. Should I
only attribute Jboss or Jboss + all OSS included by Jboss?
William
___
License
Duck generally, and the list absolutely, does
not. The list is simply a ranking by “number of unique programs (in the Black
Duck KnowledgeBase) under the license.” We call them as we see them, i.e.
identifying the license declared for each project. So, while you might make a
great point about
...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:52 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
snip
___
License-discuss mailing list
touché
Maybe than “licenses that people think they understand
From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.commailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com
Reply-To: lro...@rosenlaw.commailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com,
license-discuss@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:33:10 -0700
901 - 1000 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
