On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:27:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
impunity, but not so Australians.
Depends. If there are patent rights then no. NOSA covers more than
just copyrights. I don't believe there's a
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
snip
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
take a gander at this?
This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert
a valid copyright on it,
I believe that the OSI is not USA only, so I hope this question does
receive some discussion.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
impunity, but not so Australians.
Interesting
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain
Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
impunity, but not so Australians.
[This was in response to my quoting from the Berne Convention to
show that copyright
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
snip
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
take a gander at this?
This license was
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and
release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I
can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must
misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Oh
Russell Nelson wrote:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
committee will have to work without your input. As we're only human,
we might make a mistake, and approve an Apache license which didn't
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
It appears that with US government created works that every US
citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work,
Not so. See my other posting.
Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to
enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I do wonder about
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the
Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without
any additional terms
I do not have an answer to the specific question, but I suspect the answer
may reside in a treaty or an international agreement that is not a treaty.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), for instance, allows works in the
public domain in the U.S. to be scooped out of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
citizens do not, then does NASA?
Why, because
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work
except try
to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of
the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no.
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
domain work and release that
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
domain work
and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For
example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into
Apache httpd?
I must misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Oh yes, you can do
I use Creative Commons public domain dedication[1] for some of the
software I author. I am concerned that some people believe that it is
impossible to permanently and/or reliably place software in public
domain in some countries. It appears that while Creative Commons
public domain dedication
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No
license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on
lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of
creativity in the derivative work is
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
citizens do not, then does NASA?
Rodent of Unusual Size writes:
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval. it's online at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
and i'm attaching the text version to
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
--
We've sat on this license submission for far too long. It's a clever
and innovative
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 04:04 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we
should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word
utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same
thing and avoids a phony formality.
Title: Fair License
Submission:
Original:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
On 2004.02.17 17:43 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
[snip]
So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the
(ideally
edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to
approving
licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the
proliferation of
25 matches
Mail list logo
