Quoting Jim Jagielski (j...@jimjag.com):
BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions?
In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and localized
restrictions. So does this mean that software distributed out of
the US, no matter the OSI license, isn't really
I would point out that one tangible result from the report was the deprecation
of the Common Public License, in favour of the Eclipse Public License.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: Smith, McCoy mccoy.sm...@intel.com
Sender:
On 03/09/2012 11:41 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
As an afterthought, OSI _might_ decide to adopt a policy that all new
licences should at least not disclaim/waive any implicit patent waiver
that might be created against patents held by licensor (estoppel
defence) -- or establish some other minimum
Smith, McCoy mccoy.sm...@intel.com writes:
FWIW, the report from the committee (which formed in ’04 but didn’t
issue a report until ’06) was published here:
http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
AFAIK, that report didn’t result in a significant amount of voluntary
deprecation of licenses (at
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
[...]
a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for
existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be
safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright
regime,
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
[...]
Someone in the other thread raised the points of first sale and patent
exhaustion, but by the same token I doubt if pulling source code off
a website counts as a sale: there is neither an express nor an implied
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
[Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs,
thank you.]
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
[paring the distribution list]
Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt.
For
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
[...]
I think this language is much too strong. It's true that there is no
treaty or statutory language allowing abandonment, ...
Certainly there is statutory language, e.g.:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov
alexander.terek...@gmail.com wrote:
This may be of interest to lawyers and non-lawyers on these
(license-rev...@opensource.org, license-discuss@opensource.org,
bo...@opensource.org) lists:
The European Court of Justice, upcoming preliminary
9 matches
Mail list logo
