Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]

I've moved this to license-discuss because I'm not sure this is part of discussion of any licence being evaluated, any more. I could be wrong (and am certainly not criticising upthread posts). Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): > Again, OSI would be well-served by actually writing down the

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that > impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. With great respect: It's not that. The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org): > I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others > avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated. I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts. (My

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does > most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small > interactive main program which provides the command line. This main > program is provided in two versions. One

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the word

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is > that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when > responding. FWIW, if more MUAs (mail user agents) were updated to become compliant with RFC 2369 section 3.4 (as

Re: [License-discuss] [somewhat OT provocation] justifying the commercial no-discrimination clause

strawmen, so the best/most serious answers will be deeply > appreciated. Above is obviously not your ideal answer. However, I hope its review of some relevant software history will be useful to you. -- Cheers, "The crows seemed to be callin

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

good. -- Cheers, 299792458 meters per second. Not Rick Moenjust a good idea. It's the law. r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80 ___ License-di

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

nes. -- Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw." Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list Li

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

o be gained. I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope it proves enlightening, nonetheless. -- Cheers, 299792458 meters per second. Not Rick Moenjust a good idea. It's the law. r

Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent

Cheers, Homo in Domu Alba, qui est iratus et habet in Rick Moenartificialibus capillum: Quod homo non sit r...@linuxmafia.com honesta, et est perniciosa in rei publicae. McQ! (4x80) ___ L

Re: [License-discuss] Is the OBM License OSD compatible?

through assertion rather than adjudication. -- Cheers, "To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of Rick Moensomething, when you walk around. That way, if anybody r...@linuxmafia.com says 'Hey, can you give me a hand?', you can

Re: [License-discuss] Is the OBM License OSD compatible?

Quoting Marc Laporte (m...@marclaporte.com): > Hello! > > The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms": Whenever I see *GPL + 'Additional Terms', I immediately think 'Oh, this is going to be yet another badgewear licence. Back in the middle 2000s when there was a full-court press to badger

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

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus, > wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me, > that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party > withdrew the submission. You're

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

erwise. There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant. (CC0 is by design not a software licence in the first place, but that's a different subject.) -- Cheers,"It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking Rick Moen than think your way

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

source. When this came up in the early 2000s, I FAQed it. http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html (I found the upthread barrage of rhetorical questions a waste of time and unproductive, FWIW.) -- Cheers,"It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking Rick Moen

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our liking. https://about.gitlab.com/ -- Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose Rick Moen smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it r...@linuxm

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): > He said that CC would consider when they had more timeŠback in 2012Šso I > guess either Creative Commons has been insanely busy the last four years > or that was a very polite way of saying ³yah whatever, the FSF already > recommends CC0 even

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

n this mailing list today appear not to have. -- Cheers, Grossman's Law: "In time of crisis, people do not rise to Rick Moen the occasion. They fall to the level of their training." r...@linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#grossman

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net): > There are those who disagree, myself included. (And what makes > Engel Nyst the last word on such matters?) As I'm sure you are aware, I merely meant that Mr. Nyst expressed my view well enough that it would be redundant effort to write up

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

ce.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-December/018777.html -- Cheers, Grossman's Law: "In time of crisis, people do not rise to Rick Moen the occasion. They fall to the level of their training." r...@linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.h

Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license

ready include a limited aleph-nought infinity of implicit proprietary (non-free) licences? E.g., your right to use the bsdutils for any purpose provided you obey the advertising clause, agree there's no warranties, and preserve the copyright notice and licence terms, implies also permission subj

Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license

see little or no point in OSI reviewing _that_ metalicence. A choice among OSI Certified licences obviously produces as its result an OSI Certified licence, and there's no point in reviewing that, as there's nothing to review that hasn't already been reviewed and approved. -- Cheers

Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license

Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): > Rick Moen writes: > > CC0 is _likely_ to pass certification if it were re-submitted > > (having been withdrawn by submitter > > <> Well, read it. Especially read the fallback permissive licence, that

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

Quoting Stephen Paul Weber (singpol...@singpolyma.net): > If you want to be open source and do not want to require > attribution, why not consider or similar? Like most recent licences that aim to be more minimal than MIT/X11 License and Fair License (both OSI Certified,

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

cally. [1] Naturally, contributors and other copyright stakesholders _can_ waive the requirement of notice. I strongly second the suggestion of implementing this idea in a waiver accompanying a standard licence, rather than modifying an existing licence. -- Cheers,

Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

. This matches my understanding of the term, FWIW. My recollection is that MPL is the canonical example about which the term was coined. -- Cheers, I'm ashamed at how often I use a thesaurus. I mean bashful. Rick MoenEmbarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t! r

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tim Makarios (tjm1...@gmail.com): [...] And that's sort of my point, really. A lot of talk about convenience. Thank you for that, I guess. And thank you for having reminded us that literary works available under redistrubution-permitting licences such as CC-BY-SA have typically been

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tim Makarios (tjm1...@gmail.com): On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:58 -0700, Rick Moen wrote: Software has special problems that CC's classes of licences don't need to address. I have no problem reverse-engineering the construction of a novel to determine how to write my own

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

In case the point wasn't clear: You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art were to attempt that. Short summaries of existing licences would be a fine start, though I could swear that there have been a few. It should be remembered that the CC 'human-readable'

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Very small benefit, large downside as shown by those who've gotten this wrong. Creative Commons seems successful and it does not appear that they have ³gotten this wrong². I should

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): I dislike 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. I

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): On 4/1/15, 1:43 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: I find that assumption vexing enough that, at one point, I proposed to do a lecture on 'Proven Ways to Use GPLv2 as the Core of a Proprietary Software Business Model'. (I don't know

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and instead exploit based on their attempt to re-interpet the

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): It gets political by the second word of the full form of CC! Common ownership of intellectual property is definitely a political goal. 1. Nigel's claim was merely that the CC-BY-SA licence itself was apolitical. 2. Interpreting the

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): On 01/04/15 18:32, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: So I depend that the CC organization has put forth a best effort in making sure the human-readable summaries match the legal text. A significant number of postings on this list are from people who

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

a thesaurus. I mean bashful. Rick Moen Embarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t! r...@linuxmafia.com-- @cinemasins McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand and use as the creative commons ones. Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were simple. Very small benefit, large downside as shown by

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

understood what you think I said, Rick Moenbut I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not r...@linuxmafia.com what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http

Re: [License-discuss] PHP License v3.01 comments

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: (Jackson states in passing that PHP is not a trademark, which is almost certainly a false statement on account of common-law trademark.) A more interesting question

Re: [License-discuss] PHP License v3.01 comments

them doing so, as they have a point even if it is not of dire importance. -- Cheers, A Spanish todo list has everything. Rick Moen -- Matt Watson (@biorhythmist) r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80

[License-discuss] PHP License v3.01 comments

, but the ftpmasters have probably been preoccupied by the release process for Debian 'jessie'. -- Cheers, Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum Rick Moen qui locutionem tuam corrigant. r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80

Re: [License-discuss] Can OSI take stance that U.S. public domain is open source?

Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): [Appreciating and agreeing with what you say, FWIW, but I have one thing to add.] In the end, certification is just a convenience to the users: it says that a group of fairly knowledgeable people are willing to stand behind the cliam that each

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this? Just talking around the subject for a moment, there has in the past been a vague and informal concept of 'open' involving inspectable aka viewable source code aka source-available code, and also a much more

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Hey, all- I was just looking at the FAQ entry on CC0, and two things jump out: 1. It's extremely odd that we have a FAQ entry about one particular rejected license, and no others. I would recommend removing this FAQ entry on that grounds.

Re: [License-discuss] we need a new license for earning money

it is. Special pleading will not avail. -- Cheers,HULK LIKE OXFORD COMMA VERY MUCH. HULK WANT TO DATE, Rick Moen BUT OXFORD COMMA ONLY GO OUT IN GROUPS OF THREE OR MORE. r...@linuxmafia.com -- @EditorHulk McQ! (4x80

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Quoting Nick Yeates (nyeat...@umbc.edu): I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is... Copyright law recognises the possiblity of an abstract property called a 'compilation copyright', that being the ownership interest gained by someone who _creatively_ collects and assembles other

Re: [License-discuss] Al Re: Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): We have dropped Al from the list, as we believe he is Alexander Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked. The authorial 'voice' matches. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from source-access obligations. [Reminder: There _are_ other copyleft licences. In RHEL, even.] Show me an object-code RPM in RHEL for which Red Hat, Inc. do not provide the open source /

Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com) launched.

. Rick Moen Don't they have drawbacks? r...@linuxmafia.com Don't what have drawbacks? McQ! (4x80) -- Sam Hughes ___ License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark license, says Red Hat) and under

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

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. I'd actually be interested in Bradley or Eben pointing to any caselaw that supports their view. It's a fair, interesting, and relevant

Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents

being badly written and legally defective. For those folks, I tend to just quote Miracle Max: 'Have fun storming the castle.' -- Cheers,Two women walk into a bar and discuss the Bechdel Test. Rick Moen -- Matt Watson r

Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents

Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com): The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software [1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of copyright? I might point out, too, in

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

Quoting Engel Nyst (engel.n...@gmail.com): Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? 'I have written a truly remarkable comparison, which, alas, this margin is too small to contain.'

Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents

was Rick Moenexcited, thought it was a sysadmin party. r...@linuxmafia.com Turns out it's something to do with dancing :-/ McQ! (4x80) -- Martin Bateman ___ License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development

, I doubt OSI has relevant expertise, and would not be surprised if OSI Board members both have other priorities and are wary of involvement in proprietary software licensing. -- Cheers, I love stateless systems. Rick Moen

Re: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need comments

to a company is like being in an intimate rela- Rick Moen tionship with a brick. The brick cares nothing for you. The brick rick@linux will only cause you pain when it forgets about you. The brick serves mafia.com only its interests, and nothing else is of consequence. --Mackieman

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

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 that it should be. I'm pretty sure you have changed the subject. If your

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): [Snipping the recap and same old, same old] There is actually good reason to pay attention to the FSF on this issue. Ahem. Well, I have great respect for many of the people in FSF, but they have a long history of asserting what they would like to be the

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

, My daughter is invited to a samba party. I was Rick Moenexcited, thought it was a sysadmin party. r...@linuxmafia.com Turns out it's something to do with dancing :-/ McQ! (4x80) -- Martin

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

Christmas list. Well, my metaphorical one, anyway.) -- Cheers,Foursquare is for people who wish they were Sims. Rick Moen-- Kelly Oxford r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80

Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

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 point. You _are_ aware that Randal, despite her many accomplishments, was

Re: [License-discuss] Is Web application including GPL libraries covered under GPL?

, Actually, time flies hate a banana. Rick Moen-- Micah Joel r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi

Re: [License-discuss] public domain recognition

Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): There are no international conventions on public domain, so a public domain declaration in one country may not have any effect in another, whereas a copyright one would. [...] You would be much better advised to use a short licence that

Re: [License-discuss] proposal for revising code of conduct

, let alone real out-of-band contact details such as e-mail addresses. Not all Web forums are playgrounds of kiddies hiding behind 'handles', but many are. -- Cheers, Nothing's hotter than having a copyeditor correct your sex scenes. Rick Moen

Re: [License-discuss] proposal for revising code of conduct

Quoting Lior W. (opensource.*.n...@neverbox.com): Interesting. I did notice it's hard to conduct serious discussions in forums, but it's harder to find mailing lists for a given subject. As Garbo's 'Ninotchka' phrased it, 'Fewer but better.' ;- Anyway, I can't really counter your

Re: [License-discuss] proposal for revising code of conduct

Quoting Lior W. (opensource.*.n...@neverbox.com): Regarding the abusive moderator, it's all about trust. I trust the ones in here. As do I. However, it's always nice to not be completely dependent on trust no matter how merited. Thus my point. (Reminds me, in a way, of the

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Quoting Ken Arromdee (arrom...@rahul.net): On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Some

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Sorry, I left out a crucial word: As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party competing use. ^ commercial As I said

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success. OK, I'll see about that. http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html Offline, alas. It's reachable now. I'll soon be mirroring it on my

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

, Nothing's hotter than having a copyeditor correct your sex scenes. Rick Moen -- Max Barry r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a hurry while working on other things): Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a perception that a modest badgeware

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm not mistaken, all of them require attribution. They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

-favourite set of crazy Norwegians. By contrast, companies that try to pull the above sort of stunt, well: not so much. -- Cheers,He who hesitates is frost. Rick Moen -- Inuit proverb r...@linuxmafia.com McQ

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): It all hangs on the word reasonable in the definition of permitted restrictions of type 7b: Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

Quoting Kuno Woudt (k...@frob.nl): Even if this is true, someone aiming to re-use the license text for a new license may not want to rely on it. I have my doubts about licences lacking expressive elements as that concept is defined in copyright law, FWIW. It seems better for the license

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

Quoting Ben Reser (b...@reser.org): It's not likely to be in front of a judge if the license steward says that. I certainly never turn up my nose if someone offers me promissory estoppel, but I'm not sure a licence steward venting an amateur opinion[1] about the copyrightability of his/her

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

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, and no expressive (artistic) elements (or not enough that a judge would

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au): GPL isn't a work of art? ! Larry's view (if I understood him correctly, and I think I do), so he'd have to be the one to elaborate (if he cares to). As with so many other things, in my experience, the best way to understand the

Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#United_States ?

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

Quoting Karl Fogel (kfo...@red-bean.com): It's better to question reasoning than motivations, on this list and probably most others. I said nothing whatsoever about motivations. Lack of either serious attitude, attention to the subject, and/or a sense of perspective seemed to exist as a fact

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

Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): I question why you didn't call a halt when the discussion was obviously becoming a testosterone contest past the point of any useful content. I'll tell you offlist why this is a hilarious characterisation.

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

Quoting Ben Reser (b...@reser.org): On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Very sad. So, the barrio occupant in question might need to check out a book with the licence text. Life's imperfect. How exactly would you find said book? Card catalogue? Help

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

Quoting Ben Reser (b...@reser.org): Depending on the license that may not be so easy. [...] Ben, I was not giving you a very serious reply (but rather a dismissive one), because frankly I don't think you are approaching this discussion with a serious attitude, attention to the subject, and/or a

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

Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): Is this really a serious discussion? I exited, Bruce. You talk to the gentleman if you wish. I left. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

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

Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): The difficulty is that text often winds up in printed books, and then you either have to distribute a CD with the book containing the editable source, or be prepared to issue such CDs for no more than the cost of distributing them. Both are

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

Quoting Mike Linksvayer (m...@gondwanaland.com): GFDL requires copy of license text. And you thought 'waiver' meant...? Anyway, I like the option to refer to a license rather than include it That would be one sort of provision a waiver might state.

Re: [License-discuss] licenses and software in books

Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): Nobody ever requested the source code on a CD. Where appropriate, it was available for download. If anyone tries to contest that download is not an appropriate medium under the terms GPL2, they are doing it to be difficult, not to get the source. We

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

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@tieguy.org): As a practical matter, indicating, tracking and relying on waiver is a bit of a pain. e.g., lets say upstream says: I give you a copy of the license this work is licensed under by pointing you at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html; The

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

Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): On Thursday 06 September 2012 21:14, Lawrence Rosen wrote: I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license statement in the source tree of each program that points to the OFFICIAL version of that license on the OSI website. But it

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

, Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moenso I lit his beard on fire. -- Kelly Oxford r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http

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

Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce. Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which claims

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

Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com): Yes. I agree with you that 'public domain' is a misnomer (but no more than, say, the use of 'proprietary' to mean 'not free-as-in-freedom software'). FWIW, I feel the latter has domain-specific meaning, here; i.e., that 'proprietary' functions

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

Quoting Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com): Indeed. If the question is: Is this legally possible?, the answer might very well be No, Yes, or Maybe, depending on the situation, the jurisdiction, and the case law at the time you ask the question. This is what I tried to get across on my Web

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

, Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moenso I lit his beard on fire. -- Kelly Oxford r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http

Re: [License-discuss] OSI approved license without original license and reproduction of notices required in redistributions?

Quoting Casey Rodarmor (ca...@rodarmor.com): I would like to release my work without any restrictions whatsoever. It appears that many people seek to do this. Unfortunately, since the nearly universal of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (an international

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

Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote: I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You even said 'Read caselaw.' I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for GPL software to be embedded within

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

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir. This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you wish to identify yourself as. I am not a member of

  1   2   3   4   >