Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

ent law clearly says that this is forbidden. And that's enough for patent law to cross into territory that the OSD cares about. (I'm still not a lawyer, etc.) On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Ben Tilly wrote: > > > According to the statute as shown at

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

My legal rights to software on the computer in front of me may be restricted by many things. A short and incomplete list includes copyright law, patents, contracts, who owns the computer and my employment status. Any and all of these can impact whether I actually enjoy the freedoms that the OSD

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

ement for open source should an > explicit trademark grant also be required? Does CPAL provide an implicit > permission to use trademark given the attribution requirement? > > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf > of Ben Tilly <bti...@gma

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any license of any kind. The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent infringement is a "price". However you are unable to use the

Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business

:* lundi 28 novembre 2016 22:55 > *À :* license-discuss@opensource.org > *Cc :* c...@theiet.org > *Objet :* Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the > software business > > > > I agree with Ben. Lawyers with open source experience will dramatically > d

Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business

Nigel's list is biased towards paranoia. Paranoia is a healthy default But it is OK, for example, to ship useful standalone GPL tools to customers in a zip file that happens to also contain proprietary code of yours that does not use those tools. As always, if in doubt you should consult a

Re: [License-discuss] Is OSI still alive?

Define alive. This mailing list works... On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Just curious as I get crickets in license-review. > > I guess it must still be alive as I got asked for a donation…but an update > on NOSA v2 and UCL would be nice. > >

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

You will never cover all legitimate fears that organizations might have for a variety of reasons that seem good to them. For example you'd think that the BSD license would be entirely unobjectionable. But Facebook released a lot of code under BSD with a patent license that many objected to.

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

, May 21, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Ben Tilly quoted OSD #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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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

Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

I believe that the legal key is distribution of the licensed code, not linking to it. The LGPL defines a Combined Work and has requirements on what is required when you distribute a combined work together. The intent is clearly that if you distribute the combined work together and DO NOT meet

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

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

Re: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents

I think I can unconfuse you. :-) The developer knows of an applicable patent, but believes the following set of statements to be true. 1. The new software does not infringe. 2. The patent holder might believe otherwise. 3. Said patent may have been granted on the basis of work the developer

Re: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents

that their patents have nothing to do with your code, or just shoot their patents down completely. No lawyer, just trying to give my two cents. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2015, at 06:49, Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote: I think I can unconfuse you. :-) The developer knows of an applicable

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

I will respond inline this time because the conversation got complicated. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de wrote: Many thanks for your detailed description. Indeed, I am sorry that we are reciprocally frustrated with us. But I do not want to give up. Let

Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

- boun...@fsfeurope.org] Im Auftrag von Ben Tilly Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 03:51 An: License Discuss Cc: karen.copenha...@gmail.com; ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; Schwegler, Robert Betreff: Re: [FTF-Legal] [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses Sorry

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

different the situation may be in other countries. And I still am not a lawyer. :-) On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Wiedemann, Claus-Peter claus-peter.wiedem...@bearingpoint.com wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

Sorry, but this is a ridiculously heavyweight way of thinking about things. The problem with thinking in a heavyweight fashion is that it is easy to lose track of what is going on, and hard for anyone else to wade through it and point out the error. However I'll try. On page 6 you are arguing

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: [Osi] [General enquiries] Type of License and Keylock

Giorgio clearly is confusing open source and non-commercial. The point of open source is that when you get it, you are free to use pretty much however you want. Including commercially. So any personal use only software is not open source. See http://opensource.org/osd-annotated for details.

Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

The downside of the GPL for networked programs is that someone can receive the program, modify it to strip references to you out of the output, improve it, and then host a competitor. There is no legal issue as long as they don't redistribute. The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue. Because

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: John, once again you state the obvious to support an invalid argument: By the same token, the GPL is a standard open-source license and the Motosoto Open Source License is not, though both are equally OSI certified. Do

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

Apparently so. Because if you agree with the goals of the GPL, you should probably be using GPL v3+ rather than GPL v2+. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700 Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote: Suggested solution

Re: [License-discuss] A simple, no-requirements license.

Why don't you feel that http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT meets this need? On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Buck Golemon buck.2...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies for the previous message. I fat-fingered the send button before finishing my revision. --- There's a gap that CC0 and the Unlicense

Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] Dual License for CC0

My non-lawyer mind understands it as follows. If the PD declaration holds, then you're right. But there can be a legal question as to whether the PD declaration has legal force. But if it does hold, THEN you can use MIT. So you're covered either way. This seems to me to be strictly better

Re: [License-discuss] Illumina Open Source License

Put me in the nothing close to being OSI camp. It discriminates against anyone other than Illumina, Inc who would like to use it in gene sequencing software. I would therefore fail it under item 5. A major intent of open source software is exactly that you not discriminate in this way. But I'm

Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition

Your fundamental confusion is that you don't understand how dual licensing works. A license gives you a set of terms under which you are allowed to do something that you would not be allowed to do without the license. Dual licensing is the situation where you have a potential choice of licenses.

Re: [License-discuss] Dual-Licensing (GPLv2 and Artistic License 2.0)

The idea of dual licensing is that the copyright owner has offered you a choice of license terms. Pick the one you like better. Just make sure to follow those terms and you're fine. (And yes, the Artistic License does let you sell binaries without source.) On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Nico

Re: [License-discuss] Rejected license list [was Re: TrueCrypt license (not OSI-approved; seeking history, context).]

We don't have proprietary rights. But a name and shame list would dissuade people from diluting the term. And there is no shortage of organizations who would like to dilute it. On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Luis Villa scripsit: Slightly more

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

The GPLv3 is a rewritten GPLv2 which is less US specific, and addresses additional copyleft weaknesses. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): For example I point to the efforts of Allison Randal of The Perl Foundation in the case Jacobsen v. Katzer in litigation regarding the Artistic License. And, just another little

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): According to my recollection, she was definitely of the opinion that her statements about whether the license should be enforceable at all helped sway the judge to the position

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu): Possibly, if the court decides the license is ambiguous. They might look to the preamble, as well as the licensor's statements (as you said, the licensor is often not

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): This may be true, but there are many cases where someone who in some way represents the drafter of a boilerplate legal vehicle filed an amicus brief that was given due weight by a judge

Re: [License-discuss] OSI license issue: Artistic license

There was a time when the Artistic license v1.0 was in use in many projects in many forms. For example at one point Ruby was under a version, many CPAN modules are (or were) under it, many ports of those modules to other languages, etc. Making it worse, people who are inclined to use the

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Robin Winning robin.winn...@cyaninc.com wrote: Hi All, I am a contracts manager at software company, and in addition to doing contracts, I now find myself reviewing the licenses associated with the open source packages my company has acquired. I have become

Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?

I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of follow the license or we sue for copyright had ever been tested in a US court for software that had been

Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?

. Thanks Bruce Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote: I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of follow the license or we sue for copyright had ever

Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. But I am under the impression that in the USA there is precedent saying that incidental copies that are necessary for use in a temporary medium (eg RAM) are not considered fixed and are therefore allowed under copyright law. If so, then any

Re: [License-discuss] Creating GPL code

As copyright holder you can license your stuff however you want and give yourself whatever permissions you want. But if you want it to be useful to others, you have to make sure that they receive everything that they need to take the GPLed project and run with it. So, for instance, if you've

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au): well, ok, but on what grounds would copyright not apply? I believe Larry was asserting his view that a software licence consists solely of functional elements,

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): This makes me wonder whether clever license terms would be patentable under US law. So, Ben: What did you determine when you measured that notion against, say... https

Re: [License-discuss] plain text license versions?

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: [...] For that matter is it not also a violation of the technology neutral clause of the open source definition? No. Read it. I did. If you only provide a

Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Russ Nelson asked: Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed? Not that I can recall. :-) Out of fear of that very result, though, I support increased infrastructure spending by our government.

Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

off from sharing under the same terms -- which seems to me a prime example of failing to grasp _either_ of the two basic facts about copyright law and software I mentioned to Ben Tilly:  (1) People can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to perform with their own

Re: two new licenses approved

Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We approved two new licenses. http://opensource.org/licenses/ The Sleepycat license is BSD with a required source disclosure term, and the Nethask license is a GPL precursor. Both are obviously open source with no controversial terms whatsoever, but we

Re: two new licenses approved

"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We approved two new licenses. http://opensource.org/licenses/ The Sleepycat license is BSD with a required source disclosure term, and the Nethask license is a GPL precursor. Both are obviously o

RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent

"Smith, Devin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou Grinzo wrote: I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free licenses is that they're not specific enough. My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licenses is that many of them are not properly drafted. The GNU GPL is

Re: Transfer of Copyright

Jimmy Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be delightful if people could post sample documents for the transfer of copyright. Someone asked something about transfer of copyright to for-profit companies. The idea is that some authors may be wary of transferring their rights to a for-profit

RE: Germany

Dave J Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Alexander Eichler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] in US, it needs copyright law to act like it does. Conclusion is, that GPL is only a possibility to give the right to use to somebody else. Copyright beneath this still exists. So GPL is a

RE: [Fwd: Germany]

"Ravicher, Daniel B." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 3:20 PM To: Angelo Schneider; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: Germany] On Saturday 27 January 2001 07:48 am, Angelo

Re: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source

Bryan George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Johnson wrote: On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote: Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots = document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks! Sigh... I don't have MS Office, and I am not

RE: IPL as a burden

"Lawrence E. Rosen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be applied to licenses, because licenses

Re: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source

Bryan George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: News flash: A _lot_ of technical people are using Word docs and PowerPoint presentations these days - Linux/VMWare is my weapon of choice, but there are others. News flash: Doing so is still a good way to guarantee that a lot of other technical people will

Re: OpenDivX license

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:51:40PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [...] A philosophical point first: I believe that attempting standards enforcement through copyright licensing is fundamentally broken. We've seen this tried several times, with the

Re: IPL as a burden

Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring license fees was compatible with open

RE: IPL as a burden

"Carter Bullard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentle people, I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in. IANAL as well. From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

Re: Free Software Licensing Strategy -- Some guidelines

Tom Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] 1. Understand the standard licensing models --- ... The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl programming language, however, it's a somewhat eclectic and ambiguous

Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?

Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source *Game* Programming? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:26:04 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote: IANAL but I think the general reaction would

Re: Request for approval: IPL 1.0

mmendation for your license. I will refuse to use or recommend any software produced under this license. I suspect from your license that you are unclear on what this whole open-source thing is. Regards, Ben Tilly best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international in

Re: IPL as a burden

Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank LaMonica wrote: but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable Dear Frank, thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack

Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?

Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, thanks for the open :) reply... I just want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on either part here. Ben Tilly wrote: My first comment is that we don't need an additional license. Mine would be: we finally need one that works

Re: Free documentation licenses

Karsten Self wrote: on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:26:20PM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The way I read 3(c), the GNU GPL refers to the program, but doesn't preclude its inclusion into a larger, ***nonprogram*** work: [...] I think section 2 has a

Re: Qt/Embedded

David Johnson wrote: On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and tangible requirements of copyright law, and is therefore a copy under

Another pass at redrafting the Artistic License

(To the folks on the license-discuss list.) As you may know, Perl is currently undergoing a rewrite. As part of this rewrite licensing is being reviewed, and we are attempting to come up with an Artistic License that is (*ahem*) on somewhat better grounds than the current one. This is my

Re: Another pass at redrafting the Artistic License

David Johnson wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: (To the folks on the license-discuss list.) As you may know, Perl is currently undergoing a rewrite. As part of this rewrite licensing is being reviewed, and we are attempting to come up with an Artistic License that is (*ahem