On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > Allison Randal scripsit: > >> If you want specific examples, I'd say GPL and Apache both work fine >> with inbound=outbound. GPL takes a position close to compelling >> inbound=outbound. Apache 2.0 was specifically designed with >> inbound=outbound in mind, you can see fingerprints of it all over the >> text. > > I cannot imagine any open source license (other than un-templated ones with > hard-coded licensors) that *cannot* work as an inbound license. Does > anyone have counterexamples?
Here is a simple example. A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar. But no prior written permission from Foo was obtained for this. If Foo looks at the project, notices a bug, and submits a patch under the same license, the project can't apply that patch without violating the license. >> I totally support campaigning for inbound=outbound and DCO, > > What does DCO mean in this context? > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org > Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. --Oscar Wilde > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss