Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
with it.
Thanks
Bruce
On 4/17/2013 10:04 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Robin Winning robin.winn...@cyaninc.com writes:
I am a contracts manager at
for the
poor Open
Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the
Artistic 1.0
is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in
progress.
We have much worse.
Thanks
Bruce
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Bruce Perens scripsit:
1. They are ambiguous
We appreciate what we got. But my point is that maybe with a well written
license Victoria Hall would have finished the case on her own in the lower
court.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal
to the
CAFC. So reading
The justification for de-listing presently accepted licenses is that:
1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected ways,
should they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users.
De-listing is a prompt to the organization that originally created the
license
is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is
not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have
much worse.
Thanks
Bruce
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Bruce Perens scripsit:
And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities
at 10:15 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org
wrote:
Bruce Perens scripsit:
So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the
poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet
the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this
discussion
* *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another
message or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable.
Pretty often this sort of discussion has triggered an instant flame-fest.
And I have to agree with John. If there's a breach of civility, direct
confrontation is unlikely
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL
also considered unfree when applied to
Would that we all had infinite budgets for going to court :-) But short
of having them, many businesses choose, quite sensibly, to err on the
conservative side of this sort of issue and will honor the license
whether or not a court would make them do so. This will also get them
through an MA
On 09/10/2012 01:38 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Karl Fogel (kfo...@red-bean.com):
It's better to question reasoning than motivations, on this list and probably
most others.
Karl,
I question why you didn't call a halt when the discussion was obviously
becoming a testosterone contest past
On 09/07/2012 11:24 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
I don't think you are approaching this discussion with a serious attitude,
attention to the subject, and/or a sense of perspective.
Is this really a serious discussion?
It sounds to me more like a contest of how many silly things some of us
can get
So, I have 24 titles in my old book series that have mostly dealt with
this issue.
Conveying the license text in print form is not an odious requirement.
There are 200 to 400 pages of tutorial material, to dedicate two to a
small-print rendition of GPL is no hardship.
Nobody ever requested
On 09/06/2012 03:07 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Custom waivers (particularly for something trivial like this) are just
another form of the same mess.
Posit that I am creating a version of the old Lyons Unix book,
containing the Linux source code. How many copyright holders must grant
me a waiver? Is
Larry wrote:
I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license
statement in the source tree of each program that points to the
OFFICIAL version of that license on the OSI website.
You are very optimistic regarding the longevity of OSI.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description:
On 09/05/2012 08:19 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
My understanding (I am not a lawyer) is that copyright only applies to
creative works -- specifically, to works resulting from human
creativity, or to the portion of a work that results from human
creativity. This is why, for example, the information
Arguing the merit of plain text vs. HTML is just Lilliput v. Blefuscu.
Provide both, for different reasons.
Plain-text is a better source for cut-and-paste operations.
In general plain text divides the actual license text from any attached
commentary, making it clear which is which.
There is
There are two different fundamental forms of copyright regime. One is
based upon the right to copy, and the other is based upon the moral
rights of authors. A number of European nations, for example, are moral
rights regimes, while the U.S. is based upon the right to copy.
However, even in
For my legal protection, don't treat this information as if it came from
an attorney 'cause I'm not one. There are various free attorneys who
help Open Source projects, you can ask them if necessary.
On 07/10/2012 06:30 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote:
Is it possible use knowledge I get form
On 07/05/2012 06:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other
people outside the FSF don't listen.
It is not permissible to modify the GPL text directly. That restriction
has teeth. However, I can't think of a legal mechanism that could be
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it
On 06/09/2012 01:53 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Read caselaw. I'm done.
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between separate
works and that connections across APIs do not create derivative works.
And this is
On 04/30/2012 08:36 AM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
I'm not looking for responses along the lines of you can't enforce it
so ignore it. I'm very specifically focused on the licensing aspect.
Hi Kevin,
People who understand what they're doing won't generally write a license
that can't be enforced
On 04/30/2012 10:13 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Conditional copyright licenses are most closely analogous to
conditional licenses to enter land
:-)
Well, this is more than a bit of a stretch, but I can argue it this way
if you like.
Of course, in civil law land, licenses are contracts, period.
Kevin,
If you want to make everything fit in the framework of Free Software,
you can get a lawyer for free through the Software Freedom Conservancy,
and there is a well-established history of them going to court for their
clients. But you have to fit in their parameters of Free Software.
On 03/13/2012 12:31 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
I believe the without fee here refers to payment to the original
licensor
Yes. The statement is permission [to exercise a number of rights] is
hereby granted without fee.
If it were permission [to exercise a number of rights] without fee is
hereby
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
On 03/08/2012 12:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
the notion that anyone who thinks new licences ought to address patent
issues in some way is logically obliged to try to revoke BSD licence's
OSI Certified status (or formally deprecate the licence) is absurd,
and we could have done without those and
On 03/01/2012 11:57 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
Ok, so part of avoiding lawsuits is to avoid areas where folks think
they can sue about.
Not quite, because neophytes think they can sue about anything.
Sometimes lawyers cooperate in this, because they think the victim will
settle or otherwise
It is indeed the case that the failures I see are in companies rather
than among charity developers. However, it's a stretch to state that
they already pay for lawyers! I sometimes get paid to read their
depositions and explain them to the judge. Invariably, the failure is by
an engineer or
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On the other hand, a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11 sanction
is beyond the means of someone who cannot afford a competent attorney.
Since Olson was a Free Software developer, EFF provided his attorney
pro-bono.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment:
Larry Rosen wrote:
Is anything else required under the GPL or by the Busybox copyright owners?
Specifically, is any of my client's proprietary software subject to disclosure?
Must my client help anyone -- through product documentation or the disclosure
of his proprietary code that he has
On 03/02/2012 11:34 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that
writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help.
Sure. But folks who have asked me for help got me free, and I've
sometimes found them an attorney too. This is something I would
The fact that we have not resolved some questions doesn't mean that we
don't have /any/ bright lines. I have previously published guidelines
that would keep you far from any fuzzy issues, while allowing you to
build whatever you wish.
On 03/01/2012 07:42 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Which is as much
On 03/01/2012 08:02 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
How do I know if this license applies?
Just assume it does, because you don't really have to decide this
question to be safe.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 03/01/2012 08:32 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
I am not at all sure that line works once you get into trying to
bridge GPL'd and proprietary apps
Read
http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3801396/Bruce-Perens-Combining-GPL-and-Proprietary-Software.htm
Does it matter how I do this?
Very
On 02/27/2012 12:57 AM, David Woolley wrote:
The software analogy is flawed in that software has to be understood
by a machine and is written in a language with very precisely defined
semantics. Legal documents are written to be interpreted by a human
and, unfortunately, legal language is not
On 02/26/2012 02:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
realism instead of a more-restrictive license.
When the terms are grants, or specifications of what must be granted in
derivative works.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote:
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are
not professional lawyers.
This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license.
We can fail these people in two ways:
1. Provide them with a license that
On 02/26/2012 04:05 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
If it is a broken license, perhaps those with legal expertise might
provide suggestions to fix it?
I am having trouble finding a benefit that would come from fixing it,
that we don't already have from short-and-sweet licenses like BSD.
What you
On 02/26/2012 05:50 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
So, what makes unlicense and these public domain statements alluring
is that they serve as vehicles for their authors make a statement
about public policy.
Yes, but the sentiment is so poorly directed that it's the one from
/Henry VI.
/For all of
On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed
license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple
license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers involved. While
you're at it, be prepared to make the lawyers
On 12/20/2011 11:41 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Can you tell me how many licenses are in Fedora? If it's 300, it's
something of a self-created problem, but then you'd be in lots of
company.
The numerosity itself is not a problem
This is how an attorney confirms an unpleasant truth. 300
, and their assigns know nothing of Open
Source or even that they own the property. Some (like an early but still
relevant SSL developer) are contractually bound to never touch that
software again.
Rod Dixon:
Wow! I must add that I do not think I would have seen a comment like
this posted by Bruce
Sorry, I missed that it wasn't intended for submission.
The author should back up and state a /list of goals, /rather than
present the argument as pseudo-legal drafting.
Thanks
Bruce
On 12/16/2011 10:23 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
It was never submitted -- I don't think Clark intended
to damage our own community.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you explain to me (and the list) what the definition of a
'use restriction' is?
IANAL, of course.
For software, use is execution of the software.
Copyright law doesn't speak much of software at all, so we can't rely
on that for a definition
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but also would need to give them rights to grant use licenses on the
derivative?
You directly license all users of your portion of the derivative work.
The creator of the derivative work does the same. The alternative is to
propogate a right to
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it doesn't. The GPL only has a few minor terms covering use. The
GPL relies on the act of distribution for enforcing its conditions.
And those conditions mostly hinge on the right to create derived works
rather than the right to use.
Bruce
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get into
an argument about the merits or not of this).
Copyright law spells out a number of rights, including
Is there a reference of some sort for this?
It's the case at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF .
IMO it's not all that germane to warranty disclaimer, and I'm not buying the
chain of extrapolation that leads from this case to the conclusion that
click-wrap might be
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
expression of bafflement?
Sure, no problem.
Or are you going to simply blame me for the confusion and lack of legal
understanding on the part of *some*
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1, I would ask another question:
aside from ease on the license
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it makes sense to say that clickwrap should not be a mandatory
requirement of the OSD, but could be approved as appropriate for an open
source licensor.
I'd better clear this up. There was no proposal for click-wrap to be a
a mandiatory requirement of the
Source organization that I don't want to repeat - I'll be watching out
for them, you do too.
Please go to http://perens.com/OpenStandards/ . There is a link for the
current draft, and a link for the disucssion list.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
--
license-discuss archive is at http
Thanks, Joyce. What I have suggested to FSF is that the definition of
deploy, for their use, must be tightened up to only apply to the
situations in which one would otherwise be pushing that source code
button, and only for derived works.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Joyce Chow [EMAIL
for GPL-like licensing
is well-known. If _I_ don't want to use this license, I don't think you'd
be very successful in finding other takers. Please go back to drafting.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to Your
Deployed Modifications.
Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary only
deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a derivative work,
:
On February 9, 2002 04:50 pm, Bruce Perens wrote:
I'd be happy to write the first draft and coordinate comments and changes
to it. Of course it would be a group project as I'd need to consult lots of
people - attorneys, community leaders, a discussion list, etc.
Cool.
I
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
license?
Well, if you had submitted the license without the manifesto attached,
people would have considered the
John Cowan:
I don't understand how this breaches the spirit of the GPL any more than
providing ASP-style access to the unmodified work does (i.e. not at all).
If you are free to make private mods to GPLed programs for your own
use, why not for others' use? This is just timesharing under a
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
mile) becomes too cheap to meter.
Think about think clients and internet appliances. If a lot of people go
to thin clients because they want to oursource their system administration,
then
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 10:24:02PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Or A, to look from a different side on this?
No.
The terms of the GPL don't require you to give source code to the
person to whom you distribute the binary. If you fail to do so, the
copyright holder can sue you for infringement,
Darn. I garbled. Delete the don't. The terms of the GPL require you to give
source code to the person to whom you distribute the binary. And nobody
else. The copyright holder can sue for infringement but can't compel the
infringer to give the copyright holder a copy of the source code. He can
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be concrete, suppose I provide a fast grepping service.
Grep is an over-simple case, which might lead you to trivialize the problem.
Consider Evolution, OpenOffice, or GNU Emacs. Postulate that someone makes
a way for somebody to use one of those programs
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep, like making it available through VNC, for example. A very clear
violation of the spirit of the GPL;
I'm glad you agree.
but the grey area between this and the examples in the earlier messages
seems very hard to divide between clear and non.
It
Bruce wrote (in part)
Is this fair to them? I contend that this sort of activity should
be placed outside of the covenant represented by the GPL. Richard and
Eben don't necessarily agree with me - yet.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:37:06AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
Is the goal here
Bruce wrote (in part)
So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
that would, if it were distributed in that form,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 01:40:08AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
publication of sources upon deployment.
Great. I'd like to hear comments upon the probability that this can be
enforced, and the way the license must be
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 02:21:52AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
The rights to use the program must not be conditional,
except for conditions on uses performed in service
to any non-licensed party.
Are you sure that this language works in context of OSD #7?
Also, you should
Mitchell,
A possibly naive question: The text you submitted is a _broad_ definition
that is in common use. Is there a similar _narrow_ definition as well?
I don't see that this text would be the right way for a quid-pro-quo
license to define the legal entity in which distribution doesn't
Unfortunately, the OSD is not very well written.
Of course we had no idea, at the time, that the scope of application of this
portion of the Debian Social Contract would grow so large.
I think that we'd better fix this particular problem regarding use before we
get to the more pervasive
From: Steve Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On February 9, 2002 04:50 pm, Bruce Perens wrote:
It frightens me that no one has (on the list) bothered to ask what the
additions might address. Bruce?
Badgeware, snoopware, etc., where the requirement is attached to _use_.
IMO these already fail
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Perens writes:
I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting
the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose
upon them.
Russ Nelson:
Are you volunteering to write this language yourself
Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:34:10AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
But I still have a concern. I have always argued that we should review
and approve licenses according to a published standard. This prevents
us from being (or appearing to be) arbitrary and capricious. So where
in the OSD,
Are you assuming that they will not admit new ones?
After my conversation with Larry today, and getting a better idea of the
way he wants the license approval process to work, I'm going to change my
stance. I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting
the user and developer
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:07:53PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
I am unmoved by this perceived threat to free or open source software.
Perhaps you've never had to put together a Linux distribution, or an embedded
Linux product. Consider the overhead this places on Debian, which has
up to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:38:20PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, the so-called advertising clause in the Apache license is
extremely important. As I stated in one of my columns in Linux Journal,
trademark protection is, in some respects, even more important to open
source companies
of the MIT
variants into a single license with two optional portions: the
generally-deprecated advertising clause used by Apache, and the
choice-of-jurisdiction used by X.com .
Thanks
Bruce Perens
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
That would be three licenses, I think.
OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than 4, but yes
it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully lobby Apache to get rid of
the advertising clause? They probably have enough experience now to see it's
had no positive effect.
Yes, I saw the present advertising clause. It's close to being a no-op, but
if you want it there, I guess I can't make much headway in this. Well, what
do you folks plan to do when faced with yet another BSD/MIT license?
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Approve it. We judge licenses by one set of criteria: the OSD. We
do, it is admitted, sometimes attempt to convince people to use an
existing license. Feel free to try this with NCSA.
Yes, I'm trying. I will probably bring you folks in to help at some
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:26:53AM -0400, Steve Mallett wrote:
While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of
open-source?
Yes. Indeed, I don't believe a statutory-language definition would work as
a manifesto, the way the OSD does. Imagine if the declaration of
Hi Forrest,
I think it's possible to create any number of licenses that violate the
spirit of the OSD while following the letter. However, I don't think this
example is one of them. Your #4 doesn't pass OSD #1, which requires that
sale be permitted.
It's been pointed out that:
1. The OSD is
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
item #2 of the OSD, then.
An Open Source license is _not_ required to prohibit someone from making
a version of the software that is closed source. And since someone can
do that without changing the
From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject to your license, recipients may use the
work on one or more computers, and may create backup copies of it, but may
not otherwise copy, distribute, lend, sublicense, or adapt it.
Just reading this piece in isolation, I would think it fails the
is attached to this message.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
From bruce Tue Apr 4 11:54:52 2000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail to license-approval getting lost?
Hi,
I have signed an agreement to operate as a consultant to Novell. In
that capacity I sent you guys a license for approval. I
I'm told privately that this is incompetence and not conspiracy. But that
doesn't make it any less of a problem. We need to track this.
Thanks
Bruce
OK, I stand corrected about the board listing.
Thanks
Bruce
From: "Matthew C. Weigel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am hoping also that the difficulty so many have had with unsusbscribing is
due to similar issues.
That's up to Russ Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Since he sells commercial
support for the list manager program, he should be able to fix it :-)
For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of
our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation,
or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution
of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the
rights to copy and distribute
The enclosed Novell license revision is submitted for OSI approval and
public discussion.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Novell.pdf
From: Mark Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How is that different from writing something and assigning the copyright
to your employer?
If you write something and assign the copyright to your employer, you are
operating under the assumption that such an assumption is _necessary_ because
your employer's
From: Mark Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Legally these contributors are probably considered to be assigning their
rights to the copyright holder.
Not at all. They are all individually copyright holders as long as their
contribution is non-trivial (over 10 lines), and any one of them can sue
for
From: Mark Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, transfers of copyright don't require a formal
contract--work-for-hire is an obvious counterexample.
When you work for hire, your work is in general owned by the person who
hired you to do the work, unless you negociate otherwise. This is _not_ a
From: Nelson Rush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's obvious this draft wasn't written up by a lawyer
A lawyer is very definitely involved. I agree that "Distribute the
distributions" is poor language, but you're going overboard in your
condemnation.
You've got some valid points in there, I see no reason
Here's the draft Novell license. Please note the arbitration and attorney's
cost issue. I'd like to hear arguments about its fairness or lack therof.
After we're finished with the public review and possible editing cycles
with Novell, I will submit this to the OSI board for certification. Note
I think we came to a satisfactory close on the graphviz license a while back.
Has OSI voted on it?
Thanks
Bruce
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
