Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation

Hello license-discuss, As a software developer, interested to raise awareness on open licensing, build a community of an Open Source project, and educate myself and all involved people to understand and choose their open licenses, I very much welcome this discussion. I admit I have been looking

Re: [License-discuss] Differences between GPL and LGPL

Hello license-discuss, Lawrence, Thank you very much for the discussion on the actual differences between GPL and LGPL in practice! Your clarifications on common misunderstandings on GPL/LGPL would be extremely welcome for me, and IMHO they are needed. Please do consider that apart the groups

Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page

Hello license-discuss, Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks more useful than it used to be. Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the others don't. Is this intended? A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public

[License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?

Hello license-discuss, On 11/29/12, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Ben Reser b...@reser.org writes: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Any comments welcome. If I hear a lot of +1s, then I'll edit the FAQ page accordingly. If this gets a lot of

Re: [License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?

On 1/7/13, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: What I meant was a specific rewording. In other words, I'm inviting you to do the work you're inviting me to do :-). I'll do it, it's a good point. Thank you for taking it into

Re: [License-discuss] call for volunteers: getting rid of comments on OSI licenses

On 3/5/13, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: So: we'd like to nuke all the comments. But we'd like to do that with a bit of discrimination. Specifically, we'd like to review the comments before deletion, to see if any of them should be in the FAQ. Thank you for the call! I think it can

[License-discuss] OSI site: broken links

Hello license-discuss, Checking a couple of pages, I note some broken links: On the superceeded or retired licenses page, the link to RPL 1.1. is broken. It seems the license text is at RPL1.0 canonical link[1]. On the education page[2], several links are broken. From 2009, * How to leverage

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?

On 3/7/13, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately. Driven by this question, I think we might want

Re: [License-discuss] Questions about the Frameworx license.

On 3/7/13, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: I'm posting this on behalf of Alex Siegal, who is CC'd, because he's having trouble posting to our list (the posts disappear, never even end up in the moderation queue -- we'll

Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?

On 3/7/13, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I believe was approved in haste. If OSI had such a procedure, I would recommend that the Frameworx

[License-discuss] Text version issue on licenses pages

Hello license-discuss, In the process of testing a license database tool [1], we noticed that OSI site serves the few licenses with plaintext versions available, as text/html. Please see: http://opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.txt http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.txt

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations).

Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents

On 08/23/2013 03:40 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote: I know the Copyright Commons didn't want to publish an alternative, since it would dilute their message. However, perhaps someone could strike the words or patent, give it a fancy name, and submit it here? I've just seen this is happening:

Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development

On 08/21/2013 07:27 PM, zooko wrote: I think I already have this with the Tahoe-LAFS codebase, because of the way that it is dual-licensed under TGPPL v1+ or GPLv2+ at your option. It satifsies (i), because B can use a1 under the TGPPL. It satisfies (ii), because B can use a1 under the GPL. It

Re: [License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!

On 11/06/2013 09:31 PM, Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.orgwrote: Maybe a link to the license steward's FAQ, if any (perhaps with some appropriate disclaimer that the OSI does not necessarily endorse anything in such FAQs)? This will only

Re: [License-discuss] Another crayon license

Hello license-discuss, On 11/08/2013 10:26 PM, Gregor Pintar wrote: What do you think about this crayon license? It reads to me like an ultra-permissive license, almost a public domain dedication in the form of a license. Personally, I find it an interesting license. It has a copyright

[License-discuss] FAQ suggestion

Hello license-discuss, I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question What is free software and is it the same as open source? The text currently says: One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term open source was the ambiguity of the English word

Re: [License-discuss] Another crayon license

Hello Gregor, The following are answers and comments on and around the license and its goal. On 11/10/2013 05:53 PM, Gregor Pintar wrote: Is relicense meaningful in law? Relicense is not a term of art in copyright, as far I know (I trust someone can correct me if it is). In actions and

Re: [License-discuss] Beginner question on CCSA and derivative work

On 11/18/2013 04:24 PM, Nick Yeates wrote: My question is, if I am incorporating it into a work that is considerable larger, do I need to license the entire piece of work as CCSA? The parts from U of Oxford will be, say, 3% of the complete content (derivative work???). Really, most of the

[License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages

Hello license-discuss, It seems that OSL 1.1, 2.0, and AFL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 are not accessible at http://opensource.org/licenses/[SPDX name]. As far as I know/find, they have been approved. A number of discussions on OSI mailing lists archives reference their approval. They are also not

[License-discuss] History of approved and not approved licenses

Hello license-discuss, Last week there was a need for a history of rejected licenses. That relates (to me) with Luis' previous calls for data on the approved licenses. I'm interested in open licensing, and I want to have a better and more systematic view for myself on the licenses attempted

Re: [License-discuss] History of approved and not approved licenses

On 11/24/2013 09:12 PM, John Cowan wrote: Engel Nyst scripsit: Please note that these are not rejected licenses. This is a very important point that should be made explicitly on the page. My objections to listing rejected licenses do not apply to a list such as this, which talks about

Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition

Hello, On 12/12/2013 11:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be

Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition

On 12/17/2013 09:34 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: It's quite common place today; I say weird not because it's uncommon (it's not) but for several other reasons, among which one similar to yours if I understand you correctly: this particular

Re: [License-discuss] For Approval: Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.7.2 (S-FSL v1.3.7.2)

Elmar, Your new version continues to ignore obvious issues raised on this mailing list, with direct impact on its OSD compliance. Frankly, it comes across as rude too. I will take a little more time to pass roughly again through it, but I doubt I'll do anything more, and please see suggestions

Re: [License-discuss] Better MIT License ?

On 06/29/2014 07:39 AM, Joe Kua wrote: Is this better than the original MIT license ? It has patent grants which MIT lacks. At a cursory reading, it looks like I'd expect a first draft of MIT with patents to be like. Please note: IANAL, TINLA, not affiliated with OSI. An issue with simply

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/18/2015 02:57 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote: As Allison noted, most OSI approved licenses can be used for inbound use, but we do not take a position on that issue in approving licenses. [..] Thus, the approval of a license by OSI as meeting the criteria of the OSD does not reflect a review

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/20/2015 03:24 PM, Ben Tilly wrote: A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar. But no prior written permission from Foo was obtained for this. If Foo looks at the project, notices a bug, and submits a patch under the same

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/16/2015 08:02 PM, Allison Randal wrote: The text is out-of-date, and wrong in some places. OSI is in the process of a refresh on the whole site, updating or removing a lot of old cruft, and this will get swept as part of it. That's good to hear, thank you. If OSI wants to discuss or

Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD and reverse engineering

On 01/16/2015 07:44 AM, Zluty Sysel wrote: Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software provided in binary form under this license is prohibited. I'm wondering why you want this clause. Is the software in source form available under BSD or do you intend to make it

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/17/2015 03:00 PM, John Cowan wrote: Engel Nyst scripsit: There is probably no way to make a statement like this without taking a position, and the above does that. It's saying that inbound agreements are something else than open licenses, fulfill an unspecified need that open licenses

[License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

Hello license-discuss, OSI FAQ page has an entry on CLAs: What are contributor license agreements? Are they the same thing with open licenses?. As a historical note, according to webarchive, the entry has appeared in June-July 2013, although there is no mention on it on (public) mailing lists at

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/20/2015 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: I wrote up an example of an open source license that has different legal effects when used inbound and outbound, but I've deleted it to avoid taking this thread down a rabbit hole. Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

On 01/17/2015 01:57 PM, Allison Randal wrote: OSI's criteria for open source licenses doesn't include any review of whether the *license used inbound* would be respectful of developers' rights and desires for the use of their code, encourage healthy collaboration in the community of

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

Hello, One may wonder what is the big deal with this single phrase in LGPL. It basically states something fairly similar with EU software directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024 Please see art. 6, Decompilation: The authorisation of the rightholder shall

Re: [License-discuss] open source licenses addressing malicious derivatives

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > For #1, I know CDDL has a required notice of authorship of modifications but > didn’t see anything else at least amongst the popular licenses. Same for MPL 1.1, but it was removed in MPL 2.0. Somehow similar

Re: [License-discuss] U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, > and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. You may want to update the sections

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from now. I had to have the ARL Legal team > explain this to me as well, but the ARL OSL is actually a contract, and the > contract can apply even if there is

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the >> > Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without >> > modifications, and in Source

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the > uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no > longer have any protection from

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: >> >> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright issues >> (for contributors), and IP issues.