To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com
launched.
Hi Luis,
I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than
this discussion? I won't just sit here like
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here
Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done
many times, and the list is already overflowing this week.
Luis
: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here
Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many
times
To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here
Yes, please, let's
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done
many times, and the list is already overflowing this week.
I'd actually be interested in Bradley or Eben pointing to any caselaw
that supports their view. It's a fair, interesting, and relevant
Larry,
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday:
Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that
special and unusual way. ... How often is it truly necessary to make
*derivative works* by intermixing software?
I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate
: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:15 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Larry,
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday:
Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that
special and unusual
Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:20 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday:
Perhaps, but the license
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
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
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
-Original Message-
From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:54 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I really
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
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
Quoting Engel Nyst (engel.n...@gmail.com):
Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write
the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words?
'I have written a truly remarkable comparison,
which, alas, this margin is too small to contain.'
On 8/19/2013 1:48 PM, Engel Nyst wrote:
Hello license-discuss,
Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write
the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words?
No need to be so parsimonious -- the current blurb is 44 words.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.
Chestek Legal
PO Box
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:48:06PM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote:
Hello license-discuss,
On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements
made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the
assertion that GPLv3
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote:
On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was
more problematic than useful. Linking
The problem/issue is that it is difficult to address licenses
without, imo at least, the politics of said license leaking
in.
It is difficult to write things without personal biases filtering
out, something which happens with me fwiw.
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org
On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual
license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but
it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost
always be) by political or cultural bias.
Speaking for myself I find the CC mechanism and license chooser quite nice
and not problematic at all for the vast majority of use cases.
On 8/17/13 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license
Hello license-discuss,
On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements
made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the
assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software
alterations).
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers
generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used
the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward
permissive licenses.
John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT):
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the
folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and
wanted to add my $0.02.
Luis Villa wrote on 16 July:
In the long-term, I'd actually
On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was
more problematic than useful. Linking to a*wide* variety of license
choosers or summary sites with a very strong
On 8/15/2013 10:17 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I was told GitHub's chooser accepts patches, and I was planning at some
point to try to patch out this bias myself and see if my patch was
accepted -- but of course any patch I produce is going to have subtle
copyleft biases -- which I think was
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers
generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used
the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward
permissive licenses.
Surely he jests. Choosealicense.com
Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the
folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and
wanted to add my $0.02.
Luis Villa wrote on 16 July:
In the long-term, I'd actually like OSI to promote a license chooser
of its own. But in the meantime
This guide ignores a FAQ or category (at least in non English-speaking
countries where local administrations have an obligation to refer to legal
instruments with a working value in their local language).
The license must have the same working value in English, Bulgarian,
Croatian, Czech, Danish,
Karl Fogel scripsit:
http://choosealicense.com/
We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be
great to get people's opinions first.
While I am obviously just me and not GitHub, and my site is not as
pretty, I would also ask the OSI to look at
On 15/07/2013, at 15:10, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
http://choosealicense.com/
We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be
great to get people's opinions first.
While I am obviously just me and not GitHub, and my site is
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Bruno F. Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote:
Although OSI may not want to recommend licenses, having a set of license
choosers linked from the FAQ I think is a great idea. Each site will probably
have its own level of disclaimers anyway. Having a few choosers
34 matches
Mail list logo
