community to share and improve information
about copyleft licenses (especially the GNU General Public License
(GPL)) and best compliance practices for those licenses.
Bradley M. Kuhn, President and Distinguished Technologist of Software
Freedom Conservancy and member of FSF's Board of Directors
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT):
Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European
administrations and Member states) have build applications from
multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a
single license for distributing the whole
myself, but I leave it to the listadmins to decide who's who. :)
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
[0] And, to be clear to those who seem to have missed this point: I
*don't* agree with Al's accusations/insinuations. In fact, I'm
arguing against them
Till Jaeger wrote:
Bradley and Larry have asked me to share my view as a European lawyer on
the
To be abundantly clear, it was wholly Larry's request to Till, so Larry
deserves all the credit here for eliciting this wonderful and informative
contribution to this list from Till!
As I mentioned
Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download,
installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project
grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to
the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operating
Rick Moen wrote at 16:55 (EDT) on Friday:
You seem to be trying to imply without saying so that the
source-access obligations of copyleft licences somehow give you
additional rights in other areas _other_ than source acccess. What
I'm saying is, no, that's just not the case.
GPL (and other
John Cowan wrote at 19:42 (EDT) on Thursday:
So it's perfectly parallel, reading packages for patches.
Not quite, the details are different since it's different parts of the
copyright controls. Patches are typical derivative works themselves of
the original work. Thus, both the
Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license
(in)compatibility. The below is probably the most I've ever written
on the subject, but it's in some ways a summary of items that
discussed regularly among various Free Software licensing
John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday:
I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the
compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection
(for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of
copyright.
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT):
Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit
Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf
...
At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat®
Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red
Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software licensing theorist for the past decade, particularly
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday:
I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of
copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't
evidence.
License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets
and threads about licensing on lots of
A colleague of mine asked for my comment on the following license:
https://beansbooks.com/home/opensource (included in full text below for
the archives). It's reminiscent of the Yahoo! Public License and Zimbra
Public License.
I notice that it seems that the Zimbra Public License and Yahoo! are
Larry, it seems that you responded to my point that calling the GPL by the
name 'infection' is a slur that spreads needless discord with (paraphrased)
it's not the GPL; it's the work that *you*, Bradley, and others have done
enforcing the GPL that's an infection on our community.
This doesn't
Larry,
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday:
Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that
special and unusual way. ... How often is it truly necessary to make
*derivative works* by intermixing software?
I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts
the patches.
John Cowan wrote at 12:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
I am very disinclined to go to the effort of integrating my ideas (the
actual code, which is plain HTML, is not relevant) into Github's
code
Zooko,
This thread my be drifting off-topic for license-discuss. I'm not sure
if GPL exception drafting is appropriate here or not
zooko wrote at 12:27 (EDT) on Wednesday:
However there is a specific thing that I'm unwilling to allow: that if
I make a work available to you under TGPPL, that
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday:
Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when
phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily
bad. Instead, say that the proliferation of BAD (or me-too or
un-templated or legally questionable) licenses is
Pamela Chestek wrote at 09:54 (EDT) on Monday:
And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary.
A major issue, I think, is that most people are really bad at writing
good summaries of licenses.
FWIW, a group of user interface researchers who have worked with Free
Software
Pamela Chestek wrote at 12:18 (EDT) on Sunday:
Why cannot an advocate for each license write a short blurb with the
benefits and burdens of their own license? I don't think there's
anything wrong with all the choices being positively-biased.
This can be tested now: try it and see if
Richard Fontana wrote at 08:20 (EDT):
Not with an exception in the GPLv2 exception sense, and not without
the result being (A)GPLv3-incompatible, since under TGPPL each
downstream distributor appears to be required to give the grace
period.
ISTR that Zooko was willing to drop that requirement
John Cowan wrote at 13:27 (EDT) on Sunday:
== licensing content ends here, the rest is about civil behavior ==
I've already written to Larry privately to this point, but given that
this subset of the conversation has raged on, I'd like to echo John's
point: I think many comments on this thread
Zooko,
It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions
for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to
Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3.
I believe this is indeed possible, but requires a good amount of tuits.
IIRC, Zooko, first draft was on you, right? :)
--
On Wednesday, 14 August 2013, John Cowan wrote:
Suppose that Alice sells Bob the source code to Yoyomat, a
proprietary program with delayed GPL. After the term has passed, Bob
may now distribute *that very copy* of Yoyomat freely to Charlie
under the terms of the GPL. In the scenario you
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers
generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used
the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward
permissive licenses.
John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT
Fred,
fred trotter wrote at 03:52 (EDT):
I have been burned pretty badly by people who literally rewrote
sections of the GPL to suit them and still called it GPL that I know
that some people will try those shenanigans.
The FSF is quite vigilant about handling situations like this -- it's
one
Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the
folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and
wanted to add my $0.02.
Luis Villa wrote on 16 July:
In the long-term, I'd actually like OSI to promote a license chooser
of its own. But in the meantime
28 matches
Mail list logo
