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
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 absolutely nothing about
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.
Miles and others,
Can you correlate what OSI does with what is described at
http://opensource.org/osr-intro?
I should also point out that criteria for open standards have been argued about
extensively in the standards community. They are by no means widely accepted.
I'm not suggesting that
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
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 you expect anyone to argue that the GPL isn't the most widely used and
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
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. But this list demonstrates that even the ways that we calculate
popularity are flawed. For example:
* Are GPLv2 and
17 matches
Mail list logo
