Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.

@Rudy Has someone pointed you at ODbL (Open Database License via the Open Data Commons) yet? http://opendatacommons.org/ http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ I believe that OSM switched to this and it might do what you want it to do for the data part. If all of your hosted data

Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs

On 12/27/11 11:37 AM, Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote: First, thank everyone for their responses. I especially enjoy the reading material that Rick Moen has referenced. On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: If it's not a derivative work then it's not a derivative

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit CC0 Dedication.

Moved from license review. On 1/4/12 11:04 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: That is not a very easy page to find. Thanks for pointing it out, but it's not the page people looking for something like what CC0 provides are likely to find when searching for it, I think. After some

Re: [License-discuss] Logo for an (O)pen (S)ource (Li)cense (C)ompendium

Karsten, It might be even more useful for developers* to discuss a wider range of licenses than falls under OSI approved licenses much like CC covers licenses ranging from CC0 to CC-NC-ND. Reference licenses, Academic (non-commerical) licenses, etc all have business uses if your target is large

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

On 2/26/12 5:31 PM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not professional lawyers. This is why CC is liked in the creative community. That and a broad range of licenses to meet a variety of needs.

Re: [License-discuss] combining GPL and proprietary software - was: CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

On 3/2/12 1:38 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: There seem to be three general approaches to failing to address the important matter of how to deal with the needs of independent open source software developers: 1. It's easy! All you need is the ability to fall back on a lawyer's help.

Re: [License-discuss] license for code used for scientific results?

You probably have already done this but I suggest seeing if the ScienceCommons and NeuroCommons projects offers something to your liking. http://neurocommons.org/page/Main_Page http://creativecommons.org/science It would be highly useful to have a single set of licenses to cover data, software

Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

On 6/8/12 12:16 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a difference between the two practices. Go figure

Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

On 6/11/12 3:39 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir. This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and certain factions of the BSD camp whatever

Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]

more, ESPECIALLY with the suggestion that the alphabetical list could safely be done away with. Given the issues with categorization the more neutral position would be to ONLY retain the alphabetical list. On 11/12/12 1:39 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit

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

Happy New year! The new landing page looks good. Very very minor nitpick is there should be an extra break before the Popular Licenses header to make the whitespace look even with the other blocks of text...at least for the way it renders in my browsers (safari and firefox). Regards, Nigel On

Re: [License-discuss] What is missing from this post? (license-discuss/review year in review)

I noticed your comment on the board meeting in DC as well as the membership initiative and little connection between the two. So...what's the deal? I'm either not actually on the members listserv or there's been zero traffic since I joined. An annual general meeting kinda like a stockholder

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

FT, Unfortunately the open source world has not been very amenable to things that stray beyond the scope of fairly narrow definitions of open source. Thus we have nothing equivalent to Creative Commons for software that would cover not just CC-BY and CC-BY-SA but also NC, ND and in your case some

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

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

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

Speaking for myself I find the CC mechanism and license chooser quite nice and not problematic at all for the vast majority of use cases. On 8/17/13 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

It isn't extremely odd given the discussion about public domain right above it, because folks interested in open source are generally aware of Creative Commons and the fact that the FSF recommends the use of CC0 if you wish to release your work to the public domain:

Re: [License-discuss] Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3

Larry, Interesting article, and timely since I am in the process of determining if GPL V3 is the proper license to recommend for some work we are doing. I’m not certain that I would agree that GPL V3 is the right license to advocate for CAVO given that the original copyright holder retains

Re: [License-discuss] Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3

, Nigel H. wrote: In our case the majority of the software being evaluated for open sourcing is framework and utility functions that we believe would provide value to our community. We wish to insure that this framework remains open source and commonly used but that all entities involved

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

Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to be conclusive that permitting reverse engineering is not required from LGPL users. There¹s interesting analysis of the wording but the real ³missing step² for me would be that your analysis would actually hold up in a court of law.

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand and use as the creative commons ones. Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 3/31/15, 1:59 PM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote: I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my ³simple English BSD equivalent² thread as there are just too many politics and complexities involved in those licenses and engineers, being not-so-professional in law,

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 3/30/15, 10:00 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: It's an object lesson in why coders should not attempt to draft what are often on this mailing list termed 'crayon licences'. A broader point: The quest for the shortest possible licence (of whatever category) strikes me as solving the

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 4/1/15, 1:43 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: I find that assumption vexing enough that, at one point, I proposed to do a lecture on 'Proven Ways to Use GPLv2 as the Core of a Proprietary Software Business Model'. (I don't know for sure what the backlash would have been.)

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 4/1/15, 12:49 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: I should hasten to say that you have a very good point that the Creative Commons approach has merit, and I wrote my comment far too hastily. You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art were to attempt that.

Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

On 4/1/15, 5:44 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

exception that would allow at least some GPL software to be aggregated with Apache software. But are ALL other OSI-approved licenses OK with you? /Larry From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:42 AM To: memb...@apache.orgmailto:memb...@apache.org; lro

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

Larry, Please note that ECL is an OSI approved license based on Apache and not Eclipse. Using ECL in the same sentence as MPL is mildly confusing even when you (re)define the acronym in the previous paragraph when using EPL would be more clear. As far as differentiating between source and

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

On 8/26/15, 3:14 AM, License-discuss on behalf of David Woolley license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 26/08/15 01:45, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: Larry, Scenario A: I¹m looking for an example in my codebase on how to do Foo (of course) and I

Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache

Larry, Scenario A: I'm looking for an example in my codebase on how to do Foo (of course) and I find a code snippet to do roughly what I want. I cut and paste it into where I need it, modify it slightly and move on. Developers do this all the time. If the source code for the Category B

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

; >Thanks, >Cem Karan > >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:50 PM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: [Non-

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research Laboratory Open Source License proposal

Cam, Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where software was developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government has less than unlimited rights. Regards, Nigel On 8/8/16, 8:32 AM,

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

Has this been reviewed by the ARL Office of Chief Counsel? I know the army has an intellectual property counsel as part of the JAG/USALSA out at Ft. Belvoir. You also have a tech transfer office at ARL that handles Patent License Agreements for ARL under 15 USC 3710a who would probably want to

Re: [License-discuss] Defense Open Source Agreement

ense Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 5:50 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Defense Open Source Agreement Link? On Fri, Feb 24, 2017, 2:37 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu<

[License-discuss] Defense Open Source Agreement

I was looking at the draft Defense Open Source Agreement is it’s rather sparse…any insight as they say they met with the OSI and FSF to draft it? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

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 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen" wrote: >Nigel Tzeng wrote: >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I >>would think that would be a different scenario. > >If

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

From: License-discuss > on behalf of "lro...@rosenlaw.com" > >There are other important reasons besides "aging out" why the claims

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 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen" wrote: >Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have >correctly understood this feedback to be _not_ at all a rejection of the

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Richard, It is very hard for me to take a complaint that CC0 not being OSI approved as a significant issue vs continued feet dragging when the OSI won’t provide guidance on license asymmetry, won’t vote on NOSA v2.0 and had the opportunity to pass CC0 years ago. CC0 is accepted as open source

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

For government owned patents and software that would be fine but research organizations often bring existing IP to the table funded through internal research and development funding. Some of which has limited government use rights rather than full rights. A blanket waiver of patent right by

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

OSI approval is not explicitly required under DOSA. It just says open source license. If DOSA explicitly defines the licensing authority I would prefer it be stated as any DOD approved open source license. That would insure that any projects we develop for sponsors and released as open source

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem, Sharon Woods is the counsel on the DDS. That’s probably not her email address above…it’s just a shot in the dark. But maybe feedb...@dds.mil will get you the right email or she might join this discussion. ☺ I still say ARL should punt the problem upstairs and let OSD, DISA or Department

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

From: License-discuss > on behalf of "Smith, McCoy" > > Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 > 1.0: >

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 8/18/16, 11:03 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under >open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted portions. While true,

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 8/18/16, 4:24 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of font...@opensource.org> wrote: >On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: >> From: License-discuss >><lice

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

Why not limit it to USG lawyers? That may be an easier sell for a first meeting. Especially if you can convince someone at the OMB to host the telcon because of the new policy and get the relevant DOJ lawyers to dial in. It is too much to expect clear guidance (this is the government after all)

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

>Cem Karan wrote: >> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a >> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license >> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. >We understand that strong concern. Most

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

https://opensource.org/approval Yep, you get to start this all over again. :) A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal. On 8/22/16, 4:45 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"

Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business

Cindy advice is best but the quick and dirty answer for you given the two things you stated: * We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries. * At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider providing the source code using the opens source

Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

Actually, you can limit the reuse of the pictures. For my kid pics I mark them CC-BY-NC-ND. If there are other kids in the pics I give their parents CC-BY-SA-NC so they can crop my kids out and use it a family photobook, christmas card, etc. which is precluded by the ND option if they want to

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source license to the US Government. https://code.gov/ "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of explicit patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets the definition of open source.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

MIT may be considered a single legal entity but is composed of many different colleges, laboratories, etc with their own office of tech transfer. While supporting open source is valuable so is supporting entrepreneurs and IP policies at research universities will have to support both.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent >language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that. > >Richard

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo" wrote: >On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana >wrote: >> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

nd you will lose the right to continue running the software as granted under clause 2. This is an apparent "price" of the exact same form. Either this patent grant is open source, or no license can qualify. On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu<mailto:ni

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo" wrote: >The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking >an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate >file

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

r, etc., etc., etc. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:43 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

random patents tossed out by Nigel > Tzeng to scare me. :-) > > > > /Larry > > > > "If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-dis

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

I know that is splitting hairs, but at this point I'm tearing my hair out > over this, and > > would like to put it to rest before I have to buy a wig. > > > > Thanks, > > Cem Karan > > > &

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Cem, The USG does not need OSI’s approval to release code as open source under CC0. It has done so already on code.gov. This includes the OPM, NASA, GSA, DOT, DOL, DOC and others. CC0 is compliant with the Federal Source Code Policy for open source release. It is unlikely that you can push

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

d within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > > > > You know the more

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

Nigel Tzeng to scare me. :-) /Larry "If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." -Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

s [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:23 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent rights in CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt for a one size fit all patent grant language among different agencies with different policies and the complexity under which patent rights are awarded to whom

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a criteria and a license passes or fails based on the license text itself. Not CC0 and some patent agreement that has not been written. If

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

From: Christopher Sean Morrison > Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 5:57 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD On

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Oooops :). Ignore the empty email. Why does who holds the patent matter in this case? If a patent exists and you don't have a patent grant actually precludes distribution of code it would apply regardless of who owns it right? If the existence of a patent doesn't preclude distribution then it

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

uss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29,

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)

Cem, I think I’ve mentioned this in the past but GOSS needs not be bazaar style open development. Cathedral development that simply open sources the resulting product still has tremendous value to the community. From that perspective CLAs, and dealing with external contributions are a

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

Tom, I disagree that you can’t get useful adoption without contributions from non-federal entities. The NASA WorldWind Java API project (https://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov) didn’t take in any external contributions for a very long time (if ever) but did see reasonably high adoption until Java

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open Source license for the purposes of open source release on Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL compatible. CC

Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

Sorry, this isn’t an issue. Q. Does using CC0 affect my ability to disclaim warranties? A. No. CC0 explicitly disclaims "representations or warranties of any kind" (see 4(b)). This is not affected by CC0's abandonment of all copyright-related rights to the extent legally possible. Disposing of

Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy. https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss on behalf of

Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0

Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is a free software license (as judged by the FSF). It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in this case, it