On 14/11/14 19:55, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
In our case the majority of the software being evaluated for open
sourcing is framework and utility functions that we believe would
provide value to our community. We wish to insure that this framework
remains open source and commonly used but that
Gerv,
Without knowing how OSET intends to design their software or what vendors
provide today it¹s hard for me to say.
As long as the core vote counting and verification bits are open source
and can be externally verified then one vendor providing more vote
planning aids, analytics, financial
On 17/11/14 15:02, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
As long as the core vote counting and verification bits are open source
and can be externally verified then one vendor providing more vote
planning aids, analytics, financial tracking and collaboration tools are
part of their comprehensive suite as a
/newsletter1.html. Please direct any
comments or questions or support to cavocont...@gmail.com
mailto:cavocont...@gmail.com .
/Larry
**
Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3 by Lawrence Rosen
There are many ways to distribute software. Valuable software nowadays
in the same category
as NOSA and EPL v2 if it’s a MPL derivative with special clauses for government
procurement. Maybe there is something sinister hidden in there but
conceptually it seems reasonable. Especially if it retains the MPL 2.0
compatibility clauses.
I’m curious, do you know why they haven’t
Note that the GPL is one of the least-understood licenses around,
even by some of its supporters who make the most outrageous claims
about linking. :-)
From professional experience I see some non-GPL supporters top the
charts in outrageous claims about GPL and linking. A particularly
@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the Black Duck Top 20 list of open source licenses. Your list is
the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too personally
...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:52 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
snip
___
License-discuss mailing list
To: license-discuss@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Philip Odence suggested:
Hey maybe “well-understood” is a good alternative to “standard.
Note that the GPL is one of the least
ᐧ
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro...@rosenlaw.com lro...@rosenlaw.com
wrote:
Standard is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
Louis:
Consider flipping the FAQ subject to say: Why shouldn't I cook-up your own
home-made license? I think
)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932 Fax: 707-485-1243
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:44 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses
for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about (I believe that
text used to be
on the home page).
Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use approved
licenses
Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word standard is used, some
variant of approved or OSI-approved is a reasonable replacement.
for
software.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:40 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:51 -0400
Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use
approved licenses
Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word standard
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about
(I believe that text used to be on the home page).
Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is absolutely
nothing about
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Miles and others,
Can you correlate what OSI does with what is described at
http://opensource.org/osr-intro?
Personally, I think it's up to OSI to make the case for what they do,
and the extent that they are or are not a standards body. As far as I
can tell, their
...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org
Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other meanings
of standard, when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the term standard is
really confusing...
Specially since the Wiki page does not seem to imply any of the things being
discussed in this thread...
The entry seems
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:20 -0300
Bruno F. Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote:
Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other
meanings of standard, when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the
term standard is really confusing...
I think so too now, in light of this thread
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
John, once again you state the obvious to support an invalid argument:
By the same token, the GPL is a standard open-source license and the
Motosoto Open Source License is not, though both are equally OSI certified.
Do
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested solution, can we use the word common instead of
standard? And our definition of common should be something
relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus
licenses (like the GPL v2) whose
Richard Fontana scripsit:
You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from common?
Well, the most common license is probably GPLV2+, not GPLV2-only.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
All Norstrilians knew that humor was pleasurable corrigible
Apparently so. Because if you agree with the goals of the GPL, you
should probably be using GPL v3+ rather than GPL v2+.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Fontana
font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested solution,
In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the
number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a
million) that utilize each respective license.
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses
The webpage only shows the
concludes with the following great
suggestion: Why don't you use the Apache License 2.0 instead? If OSI is
ever going to recommend answers to easy legal questions, surely this is
among them. It serves absolutely no useful purpose at this stage of our
maturity to list each version of the BSD license
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question is here:
http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Projects/Why
: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to explain
why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of basic point,
I started remedying the problem :)
Draft
Villa
Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: License Discuss
Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea
How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do.
Larry
Sent from my tablet and thus brief
Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote:
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
(and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question
Guilherme C. Hazan writes:
Just read carefully their page:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???
It isn't not anymore.
--
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | You know you have a
Crynwr sells support
used with their permission. The permission required is described
um, i think this could be misunderstood. you don't need thier
*permission* you need to meet the guidelines that they require. this
does not require written permission per se (at least that I can find) as
long as you are distributing
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and
On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD
license text titled Foo Open License v1.2?
I suppose that might be:
Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
Y is
Rod Dixon scripsit:
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Alex.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Hi,
Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm
starting another one.
So, people stated that open-source is free to distribute.
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Read it. Isnt it distribution-limited?
regards
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is
OSI-certified?
Do you recognise the green icon at left?
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html
See the orange menu? Click the last link: open source licensing
Hi,
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
thx
guich
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What does OSL and ESL stands for?
Enterprise Source License and OEM Source License.
I am guessing these are Gluecode-invented names. I have
to
distribute modified versions.
It is not the first time that the term open-source in used with a
different meaning of the OSI definition.
Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at the main
page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess. I do not see a direct answer to your question
Hi Alex
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at
the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D
Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI
license, I guess.
That makes sense. But what we think when we see the logo in the site is that
not allow to
distribute modified versions.
It is not the first time that the term open-source in used with a
different meaning of the OSI definition.
Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???
Good question... I did not notice it!
Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Simple. Their license is *not* OSI certified and they are misusing the logo
under false pretenses. (Their
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:42 PM
To: Guilherme C. Hazan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the
html?
The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be
used with their permission. The permission required is described
here:
, 2004 1:42 PM
To: Guilherme C. Hazan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only
refer to OSL and ESL licenses.
What
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
work and grants permission to distribute his preexisting
work. Author B accepts these permissions granted by the
GPL and modifies the preexisting work. This is now a
derivative work.
daniel wallace scripsit:
*sigh*
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
Preparing is what B does, not what A does.
There was a meeting of the minds so Author A and
Author B are in privity... they are not strangers to
The GPL is not a contract. It requires no consent and no privity.
The author simply declares how she exercises her rights. Nobody has
to agree to it.
Seth Johnson
-Original Message-
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:40:33 -0500
Subject: Why the GPL
...etc...more repeats of old arguments already corrected.
I find this thread interesting in that it shows that it is not just the
lawyers for SCO that have problems understanding copyright law. While
this is not to excuse all the confusions here, I do suspect that it lends
some
--- daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author A and Author B are in contractual privity.
Author A approached Author B with a GPL license and
Author B said to Author A, I accept the GPL and agree
to its terms. There was a meeting of the minds so
Author A and Author B are in privity... they
--- daniel wallace wrote:
See the Supreme Court citation [i]t goes without
saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.?
And that is precisely the reason why any license,
including for instance, the BSD license, would be
non-binding as a contract to anyone other than whoever
entered
To John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] and OSI License Discussion
subscribers,
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED],
All good advice, Larry :-)
No no no no no no no. It is *not* advice. It is *not* advice. It is
only education!
Although this posting was written
On 30 Dec 2003, at 7:06h, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge,
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Although this posting was written by a non-lawyer, I am not *your*
non-lawyer, nor are you my non-client. If you have a specific problem,
you should pay your own non-lawyer the big bucks to give you his
very own personalized non-answer.
Is it just me,
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the
difference between BSD and public domain?
I understand the need for a license, the use of copyright law, to keep
software free through copy-left. But if you
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least. We write
code for a living and would like to share as much of it as
possible with the outside, both because it makes us feel good
and because it increases the number of people making it better.
For that copy-center or copy-left would work.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, David Presotto wrote:
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least.
...
to be most useful to the rest of the company, we need to let our
code also be mixable with proprietary stuff in the company. We could
do lots of bookkeeping to separate what we wrote from
Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the
difference between BSD and public domain?
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public domain in the U.S.
The [U.S.] law is based on prior cases and/or changing interpretation,
so nothing can be 100% clear. However, Creative Commons, O'Reilly, and
other
Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The [U.S.] law is based on prior cases and/or changing interpretation,
so nothing can be 100% clear. However, Creative Commons, O'Reilly, and
other folks seem to know a sufficiently good solution. For example,
Rick Moen scripsit:
It should be pointed out that a public domain declaration would _not_
be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which
may or may not work, and may have differing results depending on
jurisdiction).
In any case, the right to recapture the copyright
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
In any event, note that the page doesn't (even at that) assert that such
a declaration is legally effective.
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally
: Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
: non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place?
This is an interesting question. I am assuming that the poster is really
asking why use a non-copyleft license rather than a dedication to the public
domain, but since
PROTECTED]
To: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Why?
: Rick Moen scripsit:
:
: It should be pointed out that a public domain declaration would _not_
: be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which
: may
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why?
I have puzzled over John's comment concerning the right to
recapture the copyright. As a response to Rick's statement,
I do not know what John means???
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
the SCO, eum, case,
but it is not. That is about copyright and ownership, not about
patents, if I am correct.
3) I do not understand how the Lucent example relates to my question
about the difference between a permissible license such as BSD and
public domain. My main question here is: why are we
Jan Dockx wrote:
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place?
I'd guess the idea is so that other people can feel free to (re)use their
code/ software. If there is no licence then the other people wouldn't feel
free
Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally effective.
You can believe that, but, from inquiries so far, it is not clear
Creative Common does. The matter, indeed, appears to occasion some
controversy.
Again, by
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Can we assume he means the right to terminate a license under certain
conditions? 17 U.S.C. § 203. This is an oft-confused issue. /Larry
I _think_ he's answering the question Can abandonment be irrevocable?,
which I asked a while ago. Assuming a PDD is abandoning
Quoting Jan Dockx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
3) I do not understand how the Lucent example relates to my question
about the difference between a permissible license such as BSD and
public domain. My main question here is: why are we so obsessed with
licenses? I understand for the FSF
If you say so. I understand that for the patent infringement (see lower
and above), but for damages, I think it is weird. I would expect the
party that made money of it to get sued, and possibly convicted, but
not the original authors that put the thing in the public domain.
Actually, that
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
The real problem is of course that copyright is a statutory right
and like all statutory rights cannot be abandoned
Wow. Looks like you are saying that we have something that expires or
disappears after X years, but cannot be forced (accelerated)
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or
somebody should offer such a service.
Anonymous code is too
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one
should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously
release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or
somebody should
examples, the fact that the large corporation in
question has suffered damage from the use of the program is why they
are suing, rather than because they paid for it. The code that was
written is deemed to be the actions taken that caused the damage if the
code turns out to be incorrect
Further commercial open source licensing thoughts, subject
line changed since this has become a tangent.
ps: we've looked at MPL and all of the other recommended licenses. I'm
sure we'll look again. But I'm also sure they each have problems for
most commercial organizations.
Perhaps. But the
James Harrell scripsit:
The obvious major issue, is now that another commercial entity (Netscape)
has the authority to subvert the license. Not that they would, but they
could. Not having this section templated (ie: Insert company name here)
is a show stopper. Am I missing something?
If you
, not The license must ensure
that source code is easily available. Whether source code is available
is a matter of fact. This distinction is fundamental, and it is why
licenses like the BSD and the MPL are open-source even though they permit
closed-source derivatives.
Take a look at [NS] paragraph 7. I do
Looking on OSI's web site, I see that BSD is OSI certified.
However, one criteria for OSI certification is that:
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there
must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more
than a reasonable reproduction
Alain =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9silets?= scripsit:
Looking on OSI's web site, I see that BSD is OSI certified.
However, one criteria for OSI certification is that:
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there
must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source
John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I
understand the distinction you are making. An open source software license
governs open source software. How did you splice this to get to Netscape
7.0? I can post part of Netscape's license, if necessary, but paragraph 5
(I think)
Netscape's license online is
not your fault. Netscape's clickwrap in 7.0 is odd and I am unsure why the
AOL/TW lawyers advised them to do what they are doing.
But Netscape 7.0 is not distributed under the
NPL, and indeed contains components whose source code is proprietary.
Taken as a whole, Netscape
Title: Hi Ada, My email address have changed, Im no longer with Commtouch but with e-Mobilis, that is why I only got your email today, congrats.
Regards
Sharone Weshler - Director of sales
e - Mobilis Ltd
2 Habarzel St. Ramat Hahayal
Tel Aviv 69710.
ISRAEL
Tel : +972-3-644 33 84 Ext
89 matches
Mail list logo
