Hi all,
maybe someone here would find interesting this concise writeup on what
the prefer FOSS new rule in Italy for Public Administrations is:
http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/08/free-and-open-source-software-takes.html
It is not properly a license discussion but I believe it is quite important.
Thanks for sharing! It makes me feel optimistic about the world :)
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Simone Aliprandi
simone.alipra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
maybe someone here would find interesting this concise writeup on what
the prefer FOSS new rule in Italy for Public Administrations is:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:37:38PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this
requirement?
For licenses that appear literally to require inclusion of a copy of
the license text? I have wondered whether we ought to start treating
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
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@tieguy.org):
More specifically, CC does it with the requirement in the license that
attribution notices link to the canonical text. Many OSS software
licenses, unfortunately, require distribution of
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.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:45:00PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Rick Moen scripsit:
Years ago, I reminded readers on this mailing list that possibly useful
reciprocal licences for non-software use by people disliking GFDL
include GPLv2, and that FSF even published a piece explaining the
So, I have 24 titles in my old book series that have mostly dealt with
this issue.
Conveying the license text in print form is not an odious requirement.
There are 200 to 400 pages of tutorial material, to dedicate two to a
small-print rendition of GPL is no hardship.
Nobody ever requested
On 09/06/2012 03:07 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Custom waivers (particularly for something trivial like this) are just
another form of the same mess.
Posit that I am creating a version of the old Lyons Unix book,
containing the Linux source code. How many copyright holders must grant
me a waiver? Is
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
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
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:07:44PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
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
That's unfortunate, because I advise it all the time for all licenses. Anything
more is a waste of time. And my clients have never been sued for posting a link
instead of a license. Maybe we are lucky???
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:13:11PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Richard Fontana scripsit:
That assumes that the printed text is not source code in the sense
meant in sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2 but is instead object code or
executable form (section 3). I believe the better interpretation of
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
That's unfortunate, because I advise it all the time for all licenses.
Anything more is a waste of time. And my clients have never been sued for
posting a link instead of a license. Maybe we are lucky???
The problem is
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 force the user to have internet access in order
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
Larry 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.
You are very optimistic regarding the longevity of OSI.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description:
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
I'd count that as another reason *not* to provide plain text license
files. 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.
19 matches
Mail list logo
