Fwiw, I don't mind having this discussion on this list. It's not that far
off topic and you're not the first to try.
Still it's my opinion that it's outside osi competence to advice or
recommend the part of your endeavor that is a proprietary license.
Henrik
On 15 Aug 2013 04:10, fred trotter
Several of the licenses on the current OSI list (including some
licenses recommended by automated license recommendation tools touted
around
here) already are Open Source But They Suck Anyway. OSI and FSF both have
proven to be sometimes bad judges of license suckiness.
Would it be prudent
On 15/08/13 03:44, ldr ldr wrote:
3. Once every quarter (4 months) of active use [defined as 10 users],
an email endorsement to address must be sent stating total number of
users; and preferably company the installation is associated with.
It's a field of endeavour restriction. It restricts
Eben,
As always I feel like I have to apologize for my language skills
when responding to you. This is so elegantly written it almost seems rude
to write replies throughout... nonetheless:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Eben Moglen mog...@softwarefreedom.orgwrote:
Whatever the truth of
On 15/08/13 03:44, ldr ldr wrote:
What are your thoughts on the existence and wording of an endorsement
clause?
Here is what I am thinking, if I choose to amend the BSD license:
Are you attempting to keep your licence open source/free?
If so, your clause 3 fails that test.
Gerv
fred trotter scripsit:
This is more an issue of brand maintenance. Lets say I create license
called Fred's Unusually Nice License and then I convince everyone
in the investor/developer communities that this is a good way to make
money and still make Libre software in the end. But then someone
It is difficult to sustain a major release cycle of 6 months and have any
significantly new capabilities at each release cycle. Easier at the beginning
as you're ramping up but once you have a mature product it strikes me as
incremental. The low hanging fruit has been built, new capabilities
Quoting fred trotter (fred.trot...@gmail.com):
The mandate for this list is facilitate constructive discussion of open
source licensing and further the goals of the OSI.
Your argument is that this list only exists to determine whether a given
license meets the definition of Open Source, and
8 matches
Mail list logo
