Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread John Cowan 
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

the only opinion that really matters is that of the copyright holder who
> has chosen to use a particular license.


Up to a point, Minister.  After that point, the only opinions that really
matters are the judges'.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income.
--Lord Macnaghten (1901)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread Simon Phipps 
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Sullivan [mailto:jo...@fsf.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:10 AM
> > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent
> >
> > "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> > writes:
> >
> > > --===0423943140736445875==
> > > Content-Language: en-US
> > > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-
> signature";
> > > micalg=SHA1; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540"
> > >
> > > --=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > charset="utf-8"
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF
> > > licenses?
> > > That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one
> > > another, would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the
> > > GPL?  In my opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the
> > > matters, and therefore should care more about such situations.
> > >
> >
> > I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about,
> but
> > in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend
> > other licenses depending on the situation (see
> > Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html).
> >
> > We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just
> copyleft
> > free software. Our licens...@fsf.org team answers questions
> > that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with the
> > community and in our compliance work.
>
> OK, so FSF is willing to take this on for OSI?  Will OSI defer to FSF on
> this?
> Ideally there will always be one canonical source of information for
> license
> compatibility so that there isn't any confusion.
>

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the "compatibility" of licenses is
a context-specific matter, so the concept of canonical abstract
compatibility information seems nonsensical in the general case.

As the author of the GPL family of licenses the FSF is a great source of
advice on the combinability of other licenses with theirs, although the
only opinion that really matters is that of the copyright holder who has
chosen to use a particular license. For other license combinations, I would
not expect the FSF to volunteer as an authority and doubt their third-party
view would be sought.

S.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Sullivan [mailto:jo...@fsf.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:10 AM
> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent
>
> "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> writes:
>
> > --===0423943140736445875==
> > Content-Language: en-US
> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
> > micalg=SHA1; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540"
> >
> > --=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="utf-8"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF 
> > licenses?
> > That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one
> > another, would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the
> > GPL?  In my opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the
> > matters, and therefore should care more about such situations.
> >
>
> I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about, but 
> in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend
> other licenses depending on the situation (see 
> Caution-https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html).
>
> We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just copyleft 
> free software. Our licens...@fsf.org team answers questions
> that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with the 
> community and in our compliance work.

OK, so FSF is willing to take this on for OSI?  Will OSI defer to FSF on this? 
Ideally there will always be one canonical source of information for license 
compatibility so that there isn't any confusion.

Thanks,
Cem Karan


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread John Sullivan 
"Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
writes:

> --===0423943140736445875==
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
>   micalg=SHA1; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540"
>
> --=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>   charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? 
> That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, 
> would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL?  In my 
> opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore 
> should care more about such situations.
>

I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about,
but in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend other
licenses depending on the situation (see
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html).

We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just
copyleft free software. Our licens...@fsf.org team answers questions
that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with
the community and in our compliance work.

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? 
That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, 
would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL?  In my 
opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore 
should care more about such situations.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:04 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Because there is often a compatibility discussion with new license 
> submissions and because the confusion among developers regarding
> OSS license compatibility comes up about once a year.
>
> For example in 2013 it was brought up in the discussion on NOSA 2.0
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html
>  
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html 
>  >
>
> And a major objective of EUPL 1.2 was for increased interoperability between 
> EUPL and other licenses
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html
>  
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html 
>  >
>
> And more recently for LiLiQ there was discussion on its' compatibility with 
> CDDl and MPL
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html
>  
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html
>  >
>
> And I brought up compatibility between the recently proposed ESA licenses 
> and NOSA.
>
> And incompatibility is mentioned as part of the proliferation project:
>
>
> 1....
> 2.some licenses do not play well together
>   Some people use "license proliferation" to refer to the fact that some 
> open 
> source licenses do not inter-operate well with other
> open source licenses. While we can urge people not to mix non-mixable 
> licenses, we cannot keep people from doing so. This comment
> generally came from larger companies.
>
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation < 
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation >
>
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation-report < 
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation-report >
>
> In what way is license interoperability/compatibility ONLY a FSF issue and 
> not also an OSI one?
>
>
> From: Richard Fontana  Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org > >
> Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 5:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org  Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
>
> License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific doctrine. I 
> can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to provide
> guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the OSI 
> occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > So what is the point of the OSI if it cannot do a simple up or down vote 
> > on a license submission from NASA after 3 years or provide any
> compatibility guidance on the licenses it managed to approve in the distant 
> past?
> >
> > Especially if the FSF has no problems in providing such guidance?
> >
> > From: David Woolley
> > mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>
> > >
> > Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 4:17 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > mailto:license-discuss@opensou
> > rce.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
> >
> > On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > > Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved 
> > > licenses?
> >
> > I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal
> > advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the
> > other half would only provide in the context of their specific
> > client's circumstances.
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss <
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss >
>
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss <
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Kevin Fleming 
Another option is to contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, which
represents a number of people who hold copyrights on code in the Linux
kernel and do pursue violators, primarily to get access to the source code
for everyone's benefit. You likely wouldn't be surprised to learn that they
have a large backlog of violation reports, though, and your report would
have to go into that queue.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:

> Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):
>
> > Rick: This is enlightening and well written!
>
> Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
> public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.
>
> A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
> rushed:
>
>   A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
>   (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
>   the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
>   tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
> ^ of copyright violation
>   copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
>   for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
>   credited code contributor.
>
> Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.
>
> --
> 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
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):

> Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.

A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
rushed:

  A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
  (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
  the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
  tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
^ of copyright violation
  copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
  for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
  credited code contributor. 
 
Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.

-- 
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
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Philippe Ombredanne 
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
 and ext> [...]
> The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to
> comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that
> were written by others, including the Linux kernel,
> [...]
> As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent
> torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image,
> you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action.
> [...]
> I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope
> it proves enlightening, nonetheless.

Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

I guess other courses of action could include:

- getting advice from the FSF [1].
- in the past, discussing on gpl-violations [2] would have been an option,
  but it looks mostly dormant nowadays and its mailing lists pages are 404.
- or if one feels strongly about the topic, public shaming?


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
[2] http://gpl-violations.org
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss