On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 07:04 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
The OSI couldn't come to an agreement on the fallback license, since it
explicitly withheld patent rights [2].
Well, sort of. My recollection is that some of the folks on
license-review including me merely suggested to CC that they
Excuse me for my absence, I am having trouble managing a substantial
increase in my inbound email. I must beg forgiveness twice since I know
full well that so many on this thread receive much more email than I do.
To remain productive, I would like to remind everyone what my goals are
here: I
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:41:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I recommend that anyone using this use it in parallel with GPL 3-or-later, as
you have done. That way, the program can't fail to be free software. And
there is nothing to lose by doing this, since it permits anyone to
Folks:
I'm not sure, but I think some people on this thread might be confusing two
different issues.
Suppose Person A makes a work a1 and licenses it to Person B under licence L,
and then Person B makes a derived work b1 and licenses it to Person C, also
under licence L, and then Person C makes
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts
the patches.
John Cowan wrote at 12:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
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
Zooko,
This thread my be drifting off-topic for license-discuss. I'm not sure
if GPL exception drafting is appropriate here or not
zooko wrote at 12:27 (EDT) on Wednesday:
However there is a specific thing that I'm unwilling to allow: that if
I make a work available to you under TGPPL, that
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday:
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 proliferation of BAD (or me-too or
un-templated or legally questionable) licenses is
Folks:
I offer the following assertions about the Transitive Grace Period Public
Licence (TGPPL) [1, 2].
* TGPPL is a Free Software and Open Source licence. (As I've argued: [3, 4].)
* It is not redundant with any existing Free+Open licence. (As I've argued:
[5, 2].)
* It is not like the
8 matches
Mail list logo
