Pamela Chestek wrote at 09:54 (EDT) on Monday:
And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary.
A major issue, I think, is that most people are really bad at writing
good summaries of licenses.
FWIW, a group of user interface researchers who have worked with Free
Software
Pamela Chestek wrote at 12:18 (EDT) on Sunday:
Why cannot an advocate for each license write a short blurb with the
benefits and burdens of their own license? I don't think there's
anything wrong with all the choices being positively-biased.
This can be tested now: try it and see if
The GPLv3 is a rewritten GPLv2 which is less US specific, and addresses
additional copyleft weaknesses.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello license-discuss,
On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Independent of this point, I'm concerned
Pamela Chestek wrote:
I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief
that
license proliferation is bad.
Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when
phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead,
say that the
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the
event that its primary intent runs afoul of local law (as is a serious
problem with such efforts), while Unlicense is a badly drafted crayon
licence,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:01:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
license oompatibility,
License compatibility, that is. :)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com wrote:
CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any.
Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain
itself ?
Not necessarily; many CC0 users are focused on data
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 06:29:26PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote at 08:20 (EDT):
Not with an exception in the GPLv2 exception sense, and not without the
result being (A)GPLv3-incompatible, since under TGPPL each downstream
distributor appears to be required to give
Hi!
Clark == Clark C Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes:
Here is an example Business Source license...
Clark Your proposal is an evaluation/crippled non-free license till a
Clark particular
Clark date, where upon it is automatically gifted under the GPL-3-or-later.
Clark If this is the case,
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts
the patches.
I am very disinclined to go to the effort of integrating my ideas
(the actual code, which is plain HTML, is not relevant) into Github's
code, absent some indication that they would be
Prashant Shah wrote:
CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there
are any. Is
this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public
domain itself?
The rationale, as I understand, is that a group in a University or
other large
organization would like to make
Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com):
CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are
any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in
public domain itself ?
In general, the focus of Creative Commons licences has been on
maximising the
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software [1],
but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed. Perhaps
because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless of
copyright?
I might point out, too, in
Clark C. Evans scripsit:
The FSF considers works released under CC0 to be Free Software
[1], but, the rationale for this determination was never disclosed.
Perhaps because anyone could sue for patent infringement regardless
of copyright?
Indeed, there are many Free Software licenses without
14 matches
Mail list logo
