Gentle people,
I submitted my company's Open Source license almost
a month ago, and resent it a week ago, yet I have
received no response, and nothing of it has appeared
on the discussion list.
It's not controversial. Did I do something wrong?
Should I send it again?
Carter
Carter
I wanted to get some feedback about the best way to assist in
streamlining OSI license approval for customers.
1) For instance, we have a number of customers who we are helping to
take their code to the open source and thus are assisting in getting OSI
approval for them. While we encourage
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Alexandra White wrote:
I wanted to get some feedback about the best way to assist in
streamlining OSI license approval for customers.
OSI is doing what we can to approve licenses; in fact we approved a couple
at a meeting this week during Linuxworld, once we get our
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Alexandra White wrote:
2) What minor changes to an existing OSI license are acceptable without
seeking approval?
Personal opinion, I am in no way associated with OSI...
I would say that changing the name is perfectly acceptable. Changing
the warranty disclaimer is also
Something to keep in mind.
For a company, when it comes down to
1.) Pay nobody for advice and have your open-source license fall into
a black hole", or
2.) Pay nobody and have your staff lawyers who were going to be there
anyway draft up a nice closed-source license from all the
boiler-plate
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
Something to keep in mind.
For a company, when it comes down to
1.) Pay nobody for advice and have your open-source license fall into
a black hole", or
2.) Pay nobody and have your staff lawyers who were going to be there
anyway draft up a nice
Rick Moen wrote:
You know, I don't speak for anyone else (which is why I can speak my
mind) -- but, _if_ I were a volunteer OSI Board member, busy with an
otherwise productive life, and I saw the time-wastage, the endless
recapitulation of eminently FAQable material, [...]
Good idea. Where
begin Tom Hull quotation:
Good idea. Where is the FAQ?
There isn't yet one. Ideally, such a FAQ should be maintained by
someone who can act/speak _for_ OSI. I have no standing with that
group.
(An advertised, searchable list archive would also be helpful.)
--
Cheers,
Message-
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:License Approval Process
To the Open Source community:
The board of directors of OSI, which has
-Original Message-
From: Brice, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've seen may requests for OSI license certification over the past year. I
would be helpful if you could publish a list of licenses pending
review, and
their priority, so those of us that have submitted a license
To the Open Source community:
The board of directors of OSI, which has responsibility to approve licenses,
is composed of volunteers. They are doing their best to catch up with the
backlog of submitted licenses. Given their other activities, this is taking
more time than we'd like. I hope you
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
I think I understand how this works.
You do.
AA. The Angels right to make their own derivative works of X is diminished
to the extent that the Angels do not have an automatic license to take
additions and modifications from the derivative works produced by
I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far
Michael Stutz wrote:
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or
snip
The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your
license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll
just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no
expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble. So you
can't put ``open
Rob Edgeworth writes:
snip
The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your
license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll
just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no
expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble.
Hello all;
Martin Konold wrote:
[..]
The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that
according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL
without exceptions.
I look on this as a bit of a strawman. It's
easy to be confused by Richard's subtle
G'day all.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote:
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:35:57PM -0500,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
To be
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
soapbox
Contrary to popular belief, "free speech" (as RMS describes it) is not
the same as "free time". "Free time" has no strings attached, whereas
"free speech" has implied responsibilities. Unfortunately, the FSF
have never AFAIK noted that
"Brice, Richard" wrote:
I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization
David Johnson wrote:
And you're also forgetting the "idiot filter" quality of this list. Someone
submits a license. Everyone proceeds to call in the question the submitter's
ancestry or proclivities. The submitters leaves in disgust. Those that do
manage to stick around after the first two
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
My conclusion: skip the certification. Write your code. If people want
it, they'll read your license after they're using it and send you
complaints. Spend the time on the important part ... the software.
We in the Eiffel community have struck a
D]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 13:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License Approval Process
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compa
ense? None.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stutz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: License Approval Process
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use s
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote:
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two
, February 13, 2000 9:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License Approval Process
Hello again all;
J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0500
Rafi M Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
It is unfortunate that the powers that be @ opensource.org only
seem to be interested
, and you won't
have to worry about the OSI's license approval process.
The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your
license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll
just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no
expert, but, personally, I don't
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I see a lot of people asking on this list why their licenses are not
being approved.
I have to agree with most if not all of your points. There are getting to be
too many licenses. And most of the ones being submitted are merely minor
modifications
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Chris F Clark wrote:
The list is supposedly part of a process to certify licenses as "open
source". There seems to be no indication that they will ever certify
any new licenses (other than from "very large corporations") as
qualifying. Among the licenses that have not
At 6:32 PM -0500 2/13/00, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Can someone clarify the license approval process for me, please? I sent a
draft license to license-approval last week and again a few moments ago, but
there does not appear to be a way to confirm that the request has been
received or is being
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0500
Rafi M Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Join the club, Scott. I submitted a license months ago and
haven't heard a thing. Others have had similar experiences as
well. In fact, I don't think any new licenses have been approved
under the certification
Hello again all;
J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0500
Rafi M Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
It is unfortunate that the powers that be @ opensource.org only
seem to be interested in gaining the support of large corporations
and those who decide to just use an
ESR certainly receives considerable flammage
to this effect, I am sure. Hopefully he's
reading this and is prepared to defend himself.
Hello, Eric! *waves*
I'm not looking to flame him, but I would appreciate some
acknowledgement. FWIW, I'm trying to get a license certified for
some web site
+ Join the club, Scott. I submitted a license months ago and haven't
+ heard a thing. Others have had similar experiences as well. In
+ fact, I don't think any new licenses have been approved under the
+ certification program.
my experience has been the same, with the addition
38 matches
Mail list logo
