, but unlike before, there would be no non-government
contribution's copyright to piggyback off of.
--
Maj Tom Bereknyei
Defense Digital Service
t...@dds.mil
(571) 225-1630
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https
ed Hat consider it to be Open Source?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > To: license-discu
Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as
you describe.
On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I
> understand it, not as Open Source.
that it is possible to do so with the
limited simple English subset. Rather than even trying that, I would
suggest that it would be better to have a proper legal translation done
of the 3c-BSD into Chinese, than to have a weak simple English version
for the rest of the world to struggle with.
~tom
==
Red Hat
On 04/05/2012 11:35 AM, John Cowan wrote:
So put Apache before MIT/BSD, but don't drop them altogether.
Perhaps we should simply alphabetize these licenses? I'm not sure we'll
ever reach consensus on ordering by importance or value or usefulness.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
On 12/19/2011 10:42 AM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
69 is way too few. In my little research of just around 600 man pages I
found over 100 different licenses -- mostly due to slight wording
changes.
Fedora is tracking 300+ different FOSS licenses.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
.
Hope that helps,
~tom
P.S. I Am Not A Lawyer, this is not to be considered legal advice.
==
Fedora Project
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
--- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
the Attribution license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
...and the
and Aggregate work distinction.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: discuss: OCLC Office of Research Open Source License
This is how combined work
department participant.
I will raise your question with
him.
We will revisit Section 3.D.
Tom
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
of creating
open-source licenses in general. Is the discussion to date indicative of an overall
dislike of this proposed license, to the level where a vote on certification would
likely fail?
Thanks again!
--
Tom Harwood
Macromedia Server Products
CFML Language Development
--
license-discuss archive
.
--
/*
* Tom Hull * thull at kscable.com * http://www.tomhull.com/
*/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
forced to close down the source and use a M$-alike
license?
Kind regards,
Tom Schouteden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
balanced irony.
And I'll still have vi.
-Tom
for the whole contents, all the relevent licenses, and a
few other things. It is now grown over 100K, I am happy to announce.
-Tom
in advertising.
My license says,
Don't use it without saying you got it from me.
They are not only different, they don't even overlap, in basic intent.
-Tom
*
* be so protected. For those components to which these restrictions cannot be *
* applied, (i.e. under the GPL), construe the term "MUST" as "PRETTY PLEASE". *
* You MUST credit tomsrtbt, mention http://www.toms.net/rb/ and [EMAIL PROTECTED], *
* and include this entire not
board of directors.
Understood. I will work on it some more to remove some of the most recent
wisecracks. And I will try not to take up bandwidth in this list forever.
-Thanks
-Tom
bout the 3-year
thing. What happens if they are counting on 3(c), and my 3-year period lapses,
well, *his* 3 year period hasn't lapsed, so the implication is that at the end
of the 3rd year, he had better get the source while he still can...
-Tom
an *ABSOLUTELY* make it
clear that this is my desire, want, and expectation, to the fullest extent
legally available to me. That is what I'm getting at, in my license- "as
far as legally possible, if you reuse ANY of this, you must give credit
to the source".
-Tom
it, or distribute customized versions of it: You must credit *
* tomsrtbt and include a pointer to http://www.toms.net/rb/ and [EMAIL PROTECTED], *
* and include this notice verbatim. Copyright Tom Oehser 1999. This notice in *
* no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component parts
it, or distribute customized versions of it, *
* you must credit tomsrtbt, mention http://www.toms.net/rb/ and [EMAIL PROTECTED], *
* and include this entire notice verbatim. Copyright Tom Oehser, 2001. Within *
* these strictures you may freely redistribute, incorporate, copy, modify, or *
* do
ange of expressions that
copyright covers.
Brian
--
/*
* Tom Hull * thull at kscable.com * http://www.ocston.org/~thull/
*/
Linux kernel book.
Maxwell's quotation is 39338 lines of code.
--
/*
* Tom Hull * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull/
*/
John Cowan wrote:
Tom Hull wrote:
Scott Maxwell's "Linux Core Kernel Commentary" seems to argue otherwise.
This book (published by Coriolis) contains a very large extract of the
Linux source code (license GPL), followed by a short commentary (copyright,
all rights reserved
is the FAQ?
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
Dr Ross N. Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), +61 8 8232-6262 (fax-6264).
Director, Rocksoft Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia: http://www.rocksoft.com/
Protect your files with Veracity data integrity: http://www.veracity.com/
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
"By reading this sentence, you agree to be
bound by the
Rick Moen terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4,
or, at your
rick (at) linuxmafia.com option, any later version." -- Seth
David Schoen
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
tand this, and would love to hear your reactions.
Cheers
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
on Linux,
that would either preclude use of or require relicensing of all
sorts of important pieces, including glibc and xfree86. Glibc is
especially interesting, in that almost all user programs access
the kernel through it.
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
d get out the dictionary and see what other words
would bring about the proper understanding and we should reflect the true
unfettered choice we are bringing into the world.
My opion here in the north.
Robert in Alaska
PS. Thanks for all you have done Richard.
--
/*
* Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* http://www.ocston.org/~thull
*/
* How hardware differs from software
* Integration of hardware with free software
Licensing topics that will get rejected:
* Naming conventions (open vs. free, Linux vs. GNU/Linux...)
* Internicene wars (e.g. OSI vs. FSF)
* Software-only issues
Also sprach Zarathustra.
---
Tom Geller * Geller
uments (on this list!) about what clauses should be added
or modified in the database.
Standardised License Markup Language, anyone? =)
Tom
--
Tom Gidden,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
33 matches
Mail list logo
