On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Manfred Schmid writes:
I hereby request an official Board statement: Does OSI approval of
licenses require the software to be free in the sense of "free beer"?
[ I prefer to use the terms "gratis" and "libre". In English, "free"
means both
I'd love your high-level thoughts on a Free Island
license or anything that might be similar in nature.
...
FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011)
This software is licensed for any purpose excepting
the right to make publicly available derived works
which depend exclusively upon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 04:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
| This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to
| make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively
| upon non-free components.
I believe these could be understood to conflict with:
- ``The freedom
I have a broad question about various interpretations
of the GPL with regard to WebAPIs. Let me start with
an example scenario.
1. Suppose that Super Visual is a clever GPL
licensed data visualization program (released by
Vendor A).
2. Now suppose that there is a closed-source, but
free to
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 03:01 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
| Let's suppose that I've working on a Ledger++ program
| which is a proprietary version of your Ledger SMB that
| adds awesome multi-state Payroll and Asset Depreciation
| features. Only rather than including these features
| in your
I found a tangible example of what I'm referring to, complete with
wonderful visuals. Chris Kleisath at Sybase describes how they
circumvent the GPL license by using intermediate APIs to link
proprietary functionality with GPL licensed works. Is Chris correct?
For GPLv2? For GPLv3?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 04:28 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0
I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either.
This license seems to have two interesting conditions.
First, it requires a
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 01:34 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
You know, Clark: Speaking for myself, I have no interest
in advising querents about how closely they can lawfully
skirt the requirements of copyleft licences, or how they
can creatively circumvent those requirements entirely, in
order
Rick,
My question is rather straight-forward. Does the GPLv3
permit the distribution of derived works that require
an independent and non-free work for its operation [1].
I was under the impression that the Corresponding Source
(all the source code needed to... run the object code)
and 5c (the
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 01:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
What confuses me and what I'm asking here is why licensing
professionals focus on two items that I consider irrelevant:
(a) what is the type of linking between D and P?
... (b) is D
John,
Thank you for your reply.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 11:18 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Does the GPL prevent the distribution of M if the
work it relies upon, P, isn't compatibly licensed?
Web browsers rely on web servers to provide most of their function
(take it from someone who was
Good Morning!
Our company is releasing a medical informatics platform, RexDB,
under the GPLv3 license later this year (after the code has a
developer documentation). We will be using 7b clause
of the GPLv3 license for a reasonable author attribution.
Even so, parts of our system will be
So that we can track changes in the license draft and
corresponding interpretation, please visit the GitHub
project... https://github.com/hattip/fmn
Thank you kindly,
Clark
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
Sorry, the repository is https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn#readme
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 01:55 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate
copyright notices from software or accompanying documentation?
As you note, the GPLv3 7b provides the right to require
the preservation of legal notices and author attributions
in
Karl Rick,
I'm proposing that we implement a open source catalog and credit system
so that it is convenient for applications to display a graphical screen
(or textual menu) listing all of a works component parts, information
about them, copyright statements, license information, perhaps
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 05:16 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Rick Moen wrote:
I'm generally doubtful about new licences without a really
compelling reason, and the whole sordid badgeware episode
from 2006-7 tends to make me particularly skeptical of novel
licences talking about 'reasonable
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
A key thing which I've seen abused is an elimination of the intended
limited scope of the Appropriate Legal Notices requirement. While in
theory a GPLv3 licensee may be subject to this requirement under some
circumstances, the way one
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 03:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
| Given CC0 expresses a willingness to license, surely an estoppel
| is created regardless of whether the abandonment is effective?
I'm not a legal professional, but I think it's the exact opposite,
in *no* case is a patent license granted:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 03:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Defective efforts like 'Unlicense' are what happens when naive coders
attempt to create permissive licences, with results about as sad and
unfortunate as would be the case if
I am having trouble finding a benefit that would come from fixing it,
that we don't already have from short-and-sweet licenses like BSD.
So, what makes unlicense and these public domain statements alluring
is that they serve as vehicles for their authors make a statement about
public policy.
Therefore should say on all interface screens
Foo, a project by Google or, if a fork: Bar, a
fork of the Google project Foo with a link back
to its github repo.
This requirement is just too asymmetric. What about
credit to the database glue you use? What about the
language? What
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013, at 02:25 PM, Eben Moglen wrote:
You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
Dr. Moglen,
I'd like to highlight Cowan's advice since I've found it very helpful
(and completely un-obvious) in my own life:
Civil apologies require confession, contrition, and
Prashant Shah wrote:
CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there
are any. Is
this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public
domain itself?
The rationale, as I understand, is that a group in a University or
other large
organization would like to make
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 07:04 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it
explicitly withheld patent rights [2].
Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on
license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they
25 matches
Mail list logo
