Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis scripsit:
> “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended
> for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
> nuclear facility.”.
FWIW, this would most probably fail the freedom 0 of the Free Software
defin
te: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:22 AM
To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>"
mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis scripsit:
“You acknowledge th
Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis quoted this “NoNuclear” license:
> “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended
> for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
> facility.”.
Matija:
> FWIW, this would most probably fail the fre
Great discussion. Comments below.
Paul
Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis quoted this “NoNuclear” license:
> “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended
> for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
> facility.”.
Matija:
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis wrote:
> Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list:
> Full name: BSD 3-clause w/nuclear disclaimer
>
> Short identifier: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
>
> URL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/bsd.txt
>
> OSI approved:
pdx.org>>
Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis
mailto:sam.el...@arm.com>> wrote:
Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list:
Full name: BSD 3-clause w/nuclear disclaimer
Short
e
> Ombredanne
> Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 3:12 AM
> To: Sam Ellis
> Cc: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org"
> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis wrote:
>
> Please consider adding the
:44 AM
To: Philip Odence
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
Well,
1. this is not a common license,
2. As David W already stated, it clearly breaks the objective of SPDX (see:
https://spdx.org/licenses/ "The SPDX License List i
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
wrote:
> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
What about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal.
Can you quantify what "all the time" means?
--dmg
--
--dmg
---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
wrote:
> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an exception
> There are many licenses on the SPDX list that do not strictly meet the FOSS
> rules – if we restrict to pure
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
> wrote:
> > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
>
> Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an exception
>
I think the idea of using exceptions f
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, dmg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
> wrote:
>> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
>
> What about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal.
> Can you quantify what "all the time" means?
How abo
> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="intended for use in the design%2C
> construction%2Coperation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
That's a completely different legal text. I agree that "not intended for use
in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any nuclear facility
Good morning:
I concur with Phil Odence and David Wheeler on the ground that the language "at
issue" is an operative license term governing --and in this case
restricting--conduct, not simply disclaiming a warranty. As such, it violates
Freedom 0 as Matija initially pointed out.
Here is the se
gal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Tom Vidal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:02 AM
To: Wheeler, David A
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
So, should we add it or not? I can appreci
should never aim to be. Change
> the website language to read “commonly found licenses, including open
> source”.
>
>
>
> I very much appreciate the “wider tent” that SPDX is aiming for.
>
>
>
> Eric Weddington
>
>
>
> *From:* spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailt
I again want to thank everyone for the thoughtful discourse on this subject
matter. This will be put on the legal team agenda to discuss on one of our
upcoming meetings and we will “hear” all of the opinions that have been
represented in the thread, including the point regarding the CC licenses
un...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org>
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org>]
On Behalf Of Tom Vidal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:02 AM
To: Wheeler, David A
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.s
Eric Weddington [mailto:eric_wedding...@trimble.com]:
> Where SPDX is at now, is that it says one thing, but does another.
> Yes, the website says that the SPDX License List is a list of "commonly found
> open source licenses". But if we're going to talk about restriction use then
> it's too lat
Philippe Ombredanne twisted the bytes to say:
Philippe> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, dmg wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
>> wrote:
>>> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
>>
>> What about we start with some empirical evidence, rat
Philippe Ombredanne twisted the bytes to say:
Philippe> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, dmg wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia
>> wrote:
>>> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list.
>>
>> What about we start with some empirical evidence, rat
21 matches
Mail list logo
