The NASA license may be unconstitutional? Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in many locations. For example, in Taiwan the Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the ROC's sovereignty and copyright laws and this requirement is unconstitutional. The same probably is true for most locations outside the US. --- Bryan Geurts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This Email was prepared in satisfaction of OSI Certification Process Step ii. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law. See 5.C. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Court Forces SCO to Show Code Within 30 Days
Mr. Rosen, you did not mention the source of the article anywhere... --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Court Forces SCO To Show Code Within 30 Days SCO claims it still intends to file copyright case 9:19 PM EST Sat., Dec. 06, 2003 IBM won a significant legal victory on Friday after a Utah judge forced The SCO Group to show within 30 days the Linux code -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
For your purpose, the BSD or the MIT license is better than the OSSAL, which impose on businesses the burden of not being able to use GPL code for their purposes. Hopefully you will not force the FreeBSD project to adapt your license. --- Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DISCUSSION: The Open Source Software Alliance (hereafter known as OSSAL), is designed to be a business friendly Open Source Software license that encourages businesses to release or make use of OSSAL software (OSSAL is a BSDL-like license). The intent of OSSAL is akin to the phrase, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. ... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
This is not your license (made by you). How can you submit other people's license for approval? --- Zoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I would like to submit the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License for review toward approval: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/ Thank you for your consideration. Z. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL, http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html ? --- Ryo Chijiiwa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal. Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the distribution of binary executables? Web-base applications written in languages like PHP do not have binary distributions. However, the act of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of compiled binaries. As such, I believe web-applications should be warranted similar provisions as those offered to binary executables under the GPL. = Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: BSD for toolset, GPL for apps
This should be perfectly fine. Seems Free (libre) Software is making great progress in medical applications! --- Donnal Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an academic physician I am working on a set of custom clinical applications using Python and wxPython that I wish to make open-source. I have started this project by working on a *framework* for such applications (called Mindwrapper), and because Python and wxPython both have licenses somewhat similar to BSD, I have released the first version of Mindwrapper under a BSD license. My intention is to continue development of Mindwrapper using BSD. OTOH, I would like to use a GPL license for the custom clinical applications (the set of which I call Prism) that I will develop using Mindwrapper. Is this combination of licenses reasonable? My thinking is this. I want to make sure that the clinical (Prism) programs always remain free, but I don't especially care if the (Mindwrapper) tool set is used as part of a proprietary product. What I clearly do want is for other Python and wxPython developers to feel comfortable contributing to Mindwrapper, and my clear sense is that most of them prefer BSD-style over GPL-style licenses. Donnal Walter, M.D. Arkansas Children's Hospital = Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
Maybe you shall try to get your software to be acceptable according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. When your software can be accepted into Debian GNU/Linux, you shall find no objections to your software on this list. Debian is where the real test is. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear list: You've been very helpful in shaping up my controversial draft, including purging it from essential faults. Henceforth revisions will be available on groups.yahoo.com/group/softdevelcoop This site may also serve as the suggested external reference for 'liberal source' seekers. I'll keep defending my views here on the OSI list too, until told to stop ;-) Cheers, --MAA --- This mail sent through NIAAD: http://www.niaad.liacc.up.pt/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is that what you are saying? So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I want, and people using the derived work will not be bound by conditions of the AFL but by my terms only? --- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Behlendorf scripsit: But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not really relicensing. This new one-byte-different derivative work is *not* under an Apache license - one who picks up that code and follows only the Apache license may find themselves violating your AFL license. The license on my *modification* (that whole byte) may be Apache licensed, but not the bits derived from your original work. Nope. The creator of a derivative work under license is the copyright owner of the derivative work as a whole. He cannot, of course, prevent other people from making derivative works based on the same original, but he can certainly defend his own copyright. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced below into the AFL, stating that You are permitted to create derived work and relicense such work under any license terms of your choice, and I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived work, including the requirements of this license (AFL). (where I means the original author or copyright holder) This should make the AFL any and all license compatible without any doubt. --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and re-license it under any license, including licenses not containing the Mutual Defense provision [to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, perform, distribute and/or sell copies of the Original Work and derivative works thereof,...]. In fact, the AFL permits anyone to freely relicense their derivative work software under the GPL. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Antiwar License
War is waged by sovereign governments or outlaws. Outlaws do not care about your license; governments are not subject to your license. Unless you have a military more powerful than any other nation's on earth, so you can wage war on any party not obeying your license, you cannot enforce your license; thus the only way you can succeed is if you conquer the world and rule it according to your wishes. And we will resist you if you try anything like this. --- Sergey Goldgaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some licenses allow free use of the author's software by private individuals and non-profits, but require a fee to be paid by corporations. Along similar lines, wouldn't it be possible to create a license prohibiting the use of one's software by the military, the Defense Department, and military contractors? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Fwd: Apple GCC source code license (APSL)
After a try more than 10 years ago, Steve Jobs does not dare to do it again. --- James Michael DuPont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question about the APSL : http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/ So, that means that the gcc changes are no longer under the gpl, but under the APSL? I have downloaded the cvs of the gcc from apple, can I create and distribute it under the GPL? or only under the APSL? mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Questions about publishing translations
OSI has no rights to give permissions for works copyrighted by other people... You need to contact the authors of the licenses for permission. The website of the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of the Economic Affairs may be useful, as it contains copyright laws and related information: http://www.moeaipo.gov.tw/copyright/copyright_news/copyright_news_main.asp --- Yale Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have finished translations for all the licenses that have been proved by OSI. Now I want to publish them as a license manual. ( many people in my country need it especiall when english is hard for them.) All the original resources are from opensource.org/licenses/. I know translation is a kind of derivative work. So Could anyone tell me what I should do if I publish the translations? Must I contact OSI and all the authors of the licenses for permission? Of course I should place a copyright notice for the original work, But I don't know what format I should use, could anyone give me advices? Yale Wu Dec 19, 2002 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Common Free Software/Open Source license names are generally specific or unofficially named. BSD and MIT licenses are named (customarily) from the school or project names. GPL is commonly referred to as such but RMS/GNU always insisted the official name is GNU GPL. Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a grandiose fashion. Academic Free License and Open Software License. These give the impression that such licenses are official or superior in some way, as endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are better named (for example) Rosenlaw Academic Free License and Rosenlaw Open Software License. The OSI should encourage specific license names unless a license is a product of wide community consent. Just a suggestion. --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have modified the Academic Free License to remove the word sublicense from the copyright grant. The new version, numbered as version 1.1, is now posted to www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. It is best for open source licenses not to be sublicenseable I request the OSI board to approve that revised version. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Software License version 1.0
What is Open software? Maybe a more specific name should be used... So open software license can be applied to other than software. Then why is it called a software license? GPL can be applied to other things too, see the WebGPL. Should the OSI stay out of the license publishing game? OSI judges licenses are Open Source or not. OSI should not itself get into the license making business. (This license says it is published by the OSI) The license is not GPL compatible---trying to create another body of code copylefted under its own conditions---not good for the community. --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Attached for your review is version 1.0 of the Open Software License (OSL). I am submitting the OSL to Open Source Initiative for its approval. The OSL is intended to serve the same functions as the GPL except that it is a contract, and to be interpreted under contract law, rather than a copyright license. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: copyleft lite?
These terms will make it not GPL compatible because the GPL is not identical to these terms. Maybe something like the source code (including any modifications) must be made available to the recipients under these terms or the terms of the GNU General Public License... --- Bruce Dodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying for a simple, easy-to-read license with some degree of copyleft. I hope it will be compatible with the GPL also. __ LICENSE AGREEMENT: When you distribute this software outside your organization, the source code (including any modifications) must be made available to the recipients under these license terms. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: UnitedLinux and open source
Free software means a well defined set of software. Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not compatible with the well accepted meanings of the community. Software libre, software livre, Tzi4-Yu2 Ran3-Ti3, etc., all are names for the same thing in different languages of the world. The fact that you do not speak Spanish, etc., is not a valid justification for attacks on the term Free (libre) software or the refusal to use it, or the claim that OSI certification is a sufficient substitution for Free Software. The concept is independent of the weakness of the English language lacking a clear term for libre. In fact, the English-speaking population should be responsible for adapting a word into the language if no sufficient words exist at the present. English borrowed from other languages throughout history, why cannot it do so again? There is really no reason the rest of the world should suffer the confusion over Free Software vs. Open Source just because of English. --- Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Cowan writes: The above program is not free software: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense . You are presuming two things: 1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and 2) that RMS defines free software. The term was in wide use before RMS came along. Anybody can call anything free software. Microsoft gives away free software (and calls it such). Free software is essentially meaningless, which is why OSI Certification of Open Source Software exists. Here's what I call free software: ... Please note that the GPLv2 does not provide all those freedoms. In my book, the GPLv2 isn't a free software license, and the GPLv3 that I've seen is even less of a free software license. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: UnitedLinux and open source
Ah-haa... See the problem with the name Open Source? I hope people in Brazil you just use the name software livre for Open Source and avoid all the problems in the English language. I hope the OSI adapts the name software libre and software livre as the official translation of the term Open Source in Spanish and Portuguese and avoid any literal translation of Open Source in these languages. If the software is livre, in spirit, it should be libre whether it is in binary or source. I can share binaries or source with my neighbor. --- Rodrigo Barbosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 03:14:08PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: Hmmm... Ransom Love loves to hold Linux binaries for ransom. Lemme see if I got this right. Holding the BINARIES is agains the spirit of open SOURCE ? Isn't that a little contradictory ? The source is open, after all, isn't it ? -- Rodrigo Barbosa - rodrigob at tisbrasil.com.br TIS - Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - http://www.tisbrasil.com.br/ Brainbench Certified - Transcript ID #3332104 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: UnitedLinux and open source
I know everything you are saying. Based on John Maddog Hall's story http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6129mode=threadorder=0 it seems in Brazil, Software Livre Código Aberto already by a large margin. --- Rodrigo Barbosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software (fsf.org) and Open Source (opensource.org) are completly different matters. Some portuguese translations: Free Software (as in fsf.org/gnu.org) - Software Livre Open Source (as in opensource.org)- Código Aberto On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:04:51PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: Ah-haa... See the problem with the name Open Source? I hope people in Brazil you just use the name software livre for Open Source and avoid all the problems in the English language. I hope the OSI adapts the name software libre and software livre as the official translation of the term Open Source in Spanish and Portuguese and avoid any literal translation of Open Source in these languages. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: UnitedLinux and open source
Hmmm... Ransom Love loves to hold Linux binaries for ransom. Whether that follows the OSD or not, the community should actively oppose Ransom Love, because holding binaries for ransom is contrary to the spirit of open source. Hopefully the community leaders like Mr. Perens and the OSI can publicly issue statements opposing Ransom's plan. --- Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saw this interview with Ransom Love, Caldera CEO (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-928704.html) and was wondering about this exchange: -- Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project? A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand. -- Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition? I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of binaries on this list several months ago, and got an earful. Am I missing something? Thanks, Ned Lilly -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. MICROMONITOR SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE AGREEMENT
Whether a license is OSI-approved does not address these issues... --- David Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, there are some clauses in the license which give me concern (patent entanglements, license entanglements, revocation upon litigation, etc.). I am hoping that the experts at OSI will evaluate the MicroMonitor license and render a decision __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
--- Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote: While this license probably is open source, it is misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license. Then please don't use BSD in the license name. It confuses people. I maintain, however, that it incorporates the spirit of BSD Except with restrictions. That goes against the BSD spirit. The only point in this license seems to be the GPL incompatibility. And you then blame the GPL? If the GPL is guilty of anything, then you are guilty of the same. So this license creates walls in open source code and divides the community, on purpose. Maybe this license should be discouraged just for this. The fault, IMHO, for this license being incompatible with the GPL lies entirely with the GPL, Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
While this license probably is open source, it is misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name). It is not a BSD license because it does NOT always permit improvements to be used wherever they will help, without idealogical or metallic constraint. For example, it does not allow the use of such code in GPLed software. The spirit of BSD is to allow the code to be used by anyone, for virtually any purpose. For example, Bill Gates can use the code in proprietary software, and Linus Torvalds can use the code in GPLed software. This BSD Protection license carries extra constraints that limit the freedom of other people to use such code. It is not BSD, although Craig Mundie would love it. Anti-GPL is not the spirit of BSD. (One could even say this license is not open source because it discriminates against people doing GPL development, but this argument may not be very strong.) --- Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] I submit for your consideration the BSD Protection License, as found at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html (A plaintext version can be found by s/html/txt/ on the URL.) Feel free to redistribute this as relevant (eg to license-discuss); I have no desire to remain anonymous (and the URL would identify me anyway). The included preamble should clarify the purpose of this license, but to summarize briefly, this license has a GPL flavour and a BSD spirit, and exists in order to allow closed source use of licensed code, while protecting the code from having that freedom removed. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Squeak License OSD-compliance
Hope you can make the Squeak license GNU GPL compatible. That will make Squeak useful to a lot of people. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is the Guile license OSI approved?
Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program (Eric Raymond) for Free Software), can there be any question that a software license the Free Software Foundation published is not Open Source? FSF may never seek OSI approval for its licenses (the source needs no approval from the derivative), but implicitly any GNU software license is Open Source... --- Martin Wolters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To whom it may concern: You can find a few open source projects on the web that use the so called guile license which is the GPL + the following paragraph: As a special exception, if you link this library with other files to produce an executable, this library does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. Example project: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaxp/ I expect, that software which uses this kind of license is still OSI certified although the license does not appear on the list of OSI approved licenses. Is this a correct assumption? -Martin W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
model for Apache Re: FYI: New revision of the Zope Public License
Hope this license can be a model for the Apache license to follow/emulate/envolve to. (Yes, Apache can follow Zope) * Paul Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011121 16:41]: Hello to all. We at Zope Corporation have finished a final draft of a major update to the Zope Public License: http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL2.0-Draft This license was derived from the previous ZPL 1.0 (and 1.1) license, which received an OSI stamp of approval almost two years ago, before the OSI started this more official process. The original ZPL was very close in spirit to the Apache license. The major goal of the license change has been to become GPL compatible. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Cygwin license (GPL + exception) question
The RedHat Cygwin (gnuwin-32) library is licensed under the GNU GPL, with the exception (additional permission) that it is ok to link Cygwin with any software under a license that fits the Open Source Definition, without the software forced to be under the GPL. This seems to be a very desirable way to solve the code sharing problem due in incompatible licenses. However, if a case rises that someone links Cygwin with software under a license that he claims is Open Source, and others think it is not, so there is a lawsuit, how can this be resolved? Can the OSI be counted to provide support for proving the license is not Open Source? Or the OSI does not have the resource to get involved in this case where OSI is just a third party? Or will the court refuse to even recognize the OSI has such power? After all, the Open Source definition is not a legal document. The same question can be asked if the exception is to allow linking to software that fits the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or to allow linking to software that is Free as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Both the Debian Project and the FSF may not have the will or the resource or the legal standing to get involved. = Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED], +1 408 943 0287, +1 408 393 6370 Dept of ECE, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0407, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy! __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
