Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate copyright
notices from software or accompanying documentation? I know as a
software developer I would most certainly NOT drop such attributions
for both legal and other reasons.
I would add further that the requirement for
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
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_
are not approved by the OSI ?
(i.e. http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )
Thanks!
-mathieu
--
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is
Gervais, Mathieu scripsit:
Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
As far as I know, the license stewards have never proposed them.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
All isms should be wasms. --Abbie
Quoting Gervais, Mathieu (mathieu.gerv...@morganstanley.com):
Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
About the latter, at a guess:
1. It's not a licence.
2. And nobody submitted it.
My new-BSD with required eating of a
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Gervais, Mathieu wrote:
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
(i.e. http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )
I am not sure when CDDL 1.1 was introduced but I
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in
trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).
However, I've expanded the scope of this
Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com writes:
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
attribution terms'.
Basically my feelings too,
Thanks guys.
I understand that if no one bothered asking, it wouldn't be there. That's a
fine answer. I just wanted to know if on the contrary it went thru review and
didn't get approved (I'm not sure how I would be able to know that from the
current OSI website. Maybe a list of
Quoting Gervais, Mathieu (mathieu.gerv...@morganstanley.com):
CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.
It's not listed on the website, which I assumed is pretty much the definition
of certified.
Yes, apparently the version that's OSI Certified is CDDL 1.0 (which
was a slight modification of MPL 1.1). I
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 01, 2012 at 05:30:54PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
In the last decade, the aforementioned group of Web 2.0 / SaaS
hucksters started referring to mandatory runtime advertising as
'attribution', too -- a rather propagandistic sleight of tongue, in my
view -- an approach that reached the
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
