On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote:
Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not
otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed?
When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license.
Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more
On 11/08/17 09:33, Ilona A.M. Fleck wrote:
I am posting this question in the assumption that there is a register of
all products which are compliant.
There is a list of approved licenses, not of approved products. Vetting
products for compliance with upstream licences would not be possible
On 29/07/17 10:27, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
The copyright holder stopped working on the project in 2005.
I am continuing the development, but do not have the copyright.
You should get the copyright owner to assign copyright to you, as,
currently, no-one is able to enforce the licence except for
On 29/07/17 09:38, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip
What do you mean by the maintainer? If you are the actual copyright
owner, you can distribute it under any licence you like, as long as you
continue to honour requests to supply the source code
On 07/03/17 13:30, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
It left me blinking too. Which OSD clause requires the distribution terms to
permit use?
I believe that position here is that OSD only covers copyright licensing
and that US copyright law gives permission to use software (for
copyright
On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved licenses?
I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal
advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the
other
On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote:
Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire*
derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you
cannot prevent the making of other derivative works under license from
the original author.
That doesn't seem to be the US
On 17/01/17 16:44, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
every change to A made by B is automatically owned by B author, thanks
to Berne Convention
Not entirely true. Only significant changes are owned by B. De minis and
obvious changes don't attract an independent copyright.
More generally on this
On 28/11/16 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne wrote:
Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for.
Giving the software to your customer constitutes distribution, and will
generally trigger any rights they have under the open source licence.
On 21/10/16 13:47, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work,
but those other people may not"
That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy /
terms of use.
Licenses are terms of use!
On 20/05/16 03:06, Andi McClure wrote:
"For purposes of the above license, 'source' is defined as the
preferred form for making modifications to the code. In other words,
minified Javascript which is not intended to be modified does not count
as a 'source distribution'."
…and if I included
On 02/10/15 10:22, Gervase Markham wrote:
* Pick a project license which does not require attribution (that
basically means a Public Domain dedication); or
Public domain dedication is impossible in Europe. There is some doubt
as whether it is even possible in the USA. The nearest you would
On 26/08/15 01:45, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
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.
On 25/08/15 22:26, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
The vendors of BAR also offer a commercial license for BAR. If somebody buys
that license, we want them to be able to use FOO under the commercial-friendly
ASL terms without having to give them any extra permission. Right now, those
people
On 22/08/15 17:00, Nuno Brito wrote:
Is there something else missing to be considered or included?
Country. This can affect the copyright regime that applies to that author.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
On 18/06/15 14:42, Kevin Fleming wrote:
In that situation, the person who produced the new work will *not* be
able to restrict copy, use, sale, etc. of the new work, since it is a
derived work of the GPL- and/or MIT-licensed original works. The
combined work's license will necessarily need to be
On 18/06/15 13:27, Riccardo Ciullo wrote:
I am writing to you because I have a doubt regarding GNU/MIT terms of
use, which I hope you can clarify: what happens if someone creates a
_new system_ by using a _combination_ of (more than one) existing
softwares covered by the GNU/MIT public
On 01/04/15 22:17, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
A significant number of postings on this list are from people who
are trying to interpret GPL in a way that would be inconsistent with
any CC-like summary of it. Those people would still try to find
On 01/04/15 18:32, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
Have I read all the legalese behind the CC licenses? No. I trust the
brand and while I have perused some just as a sanity check I also realize
that I¹m not a lawyer and I would miss the nuances anyway.
So I depend that the CC organization has put
On 01/04/15 15:37, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
CC-BY-SA
Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and
used.
It gets political by the second word of the full form of CC! Common
ownership of intellectual property is definitely a political goal.
A more complete manifesto
On 10/03/15 23:53, John Cowan wrote:
You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
single copy.
By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.
You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you
can't buy the
On 06/03/15 09:09, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Why do I only say ‘very similar’ instead of ‘equal’. The problem with your
summary is this: you do not talk about the license text! Your term “combined
work” DOES NOT OCOUR in
The problem with your approach is that you do not talk about the spirit
On 04/03/15 15:16, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
In the past I was involved in some full discussions concerning the issue
‘reverse engineering and open source licenses’. Although personally
esteeming and inspiring, such discussions sometimes became a bit
explosive: If – at least – the LGPL-v2 indeed
On 05/02/15 11:27, Simon Phipps wrote:
Surely this is a matter to handle via a 1:1 contract with your
customer? I have doubts that the additional restriction you are
proposing is OSD-compliant.
In fact, the current wording seems to share a problem with software
patents, in that you can
On 25/01/15 07:47, Maxthon Chan wrote:
This lead me to create two thing: a 3c-BSD equivalent in simple English,
and a 3c-BSD equivalent in Chinese (under law of Mainland China).
This sounds like a recipe for licence proliferation.
Note you can only do this if you own all the copyrights.
On 23/01/15 01:09, ChanMaxthon wrote:
I was once using straight 3c-BSDL but one incident (I am not from an Anglophone
country) proved to me that it's language is too complex in local courts. Now I
am sort of forced into creating a functional equivalent using only simple
English (definition:
On 20/01/15 19:48, Engel Nyst wrote:
Please do, though. It's worse to practically state that using an OSI
approved license(s) doesn't seem to give the permissions necessary,
within the bounds of the license, for anyone to combine one's project
from different sources and distribute it.
One of
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote:
Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s source code,
but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a different license. In an effort
to avoid confusion, Project B has that different license text at the head of
each of its
On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
There is no such thing as a public domain licence. The documents are
combinations of an attempt to abandon
On 24/09/14 09:25, Tarun Dixit wrote:
/submission type: Approval/
/Rationale:/Clearly state rationale for a new license
/license name: MIT//
/
There is already an approved licence with that name.
If it were not approved, you would not be able to submit it because you
do not control its
On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want. Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
while not offering a download themselves for their users.
I find it difficult to work out why someone would use the
On 11/06/14 22:24, Ben Tilly wrote:
The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue. Because now they have to
acknowledge you, adn let you see their improvements.
Not really about freedom then. They lose the freedom to hide their
upgrades, but you don't. The tactic may be within the rules, but it
On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
I think people are missing the point here. Assuming the requestor has
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL,
and, if allowed would make the AGPL
On 18/12/13 13:34, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- if you're the author (as implied by upload and the currently empty
sourceforge repository with what looks like your name attached) - YOU
decide what license you release the code under, you don't have to get
You must be the sole author. If you use
On 18/11/13 14:24, Nick Yeates wrote:
I am unsure if this forum is the correct place for this question, so let
me know if I need to ask elsewhere…
I am considering using a Work, on the public web, that is clearly
licensed under the CCSA: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
England
On 07/11/13 22:31, Gervase Markham wrote:
That seems like a pretty rare case, and would require an additional
permissions grant anyway, as it's not the legal default.
It's very common. Microsoft use a lot of BSD code and I'd be surprised
if they hadn't modified it, and therefore become
On 07/11/13 10:35, Gervase Markham wrote:
I would argue that the above sentence also establishes a precedent that
it's OK for the OSI copy of a historical license to be genericized in
this non-parameterized way.
Some or all of the contributors may also be copyright holders. The
On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote:
There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free
license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation
issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with
No they don't. All the licences seem to
On 03/10/13 09:54, Quentin Lefebvre wrote:
This is the important part:
must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and
control
It means that they cannot use it for their own purposes.
The GPL doesn't restrict internal use within an organisation, or the
keeping secret of
On 20/09/13 23:04, Pirmin Braun wrote:
+ explain how this development was financed. Because either there were
+ non-paid just-for-fun programmers at work who may turn away at any time
+ or the professional services have to pay the bills.
In my experience, open source is much more supportable in
On 15/08/13 03:44, ldr ldr wrote:
3. Once every quarter (4 months) of active use [defined as 10 users],
an email endorsement to address must be sent stating total number of
users; and preferably company the installation is associated with.
It's a field of endeavour restriction. It restricts
MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
The application is not static linked.
The exact point at which combining software creates a derivative work
under copyright law is controversial. However, you should note that the
Free Software Foundation considers dynamic linking to do so.
--
David Woolley
Emails
anything under your copyright rights.
Even in the USA, I think it has been suggested that public domain
dedications don't absolve you of responsibility for consequential
damages, so retaining copyright and attempting to disclaim warranty is
generally considered safer.
--
David Woolley
Emails
Alejandro Antonio Loyola Ruiz wrote:
I have a question: what are the steps performed by Open Source to
consider a license as open source software?
http://opensource.org/approval
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should
that they pre-date the formalisation of the open source concept.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work
of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open source developers only think of their programs as ever
being used as a whole.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855
Gervase Markham wrote:
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open
it is clear
who the copyright owners are, it can be risky to use any piece of software.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address
really off topic posts there are actually people violating the policy
about off topic complaints!
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive
to
grin and bare it for a long time first. It seems that a lot of people
fail to realise that they subscribed to a public list, and almost accuse
the list administrator of spamming them!)
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says
.)
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
License-discuss
will need to form a
contract at the time of supply of the software, that imposes this
constraint.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice
in the name of the
licence. I agree with the other reasons why this is not Open Source.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding
in such a language would
necessarily be closed in its capabilities, and would need to fall back
on humans for those unforseen problems. So, you wouldn't lose the courts
or the arguing over what something really means.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may
a design specification is reviewed, so, if their management cannot
understand the licence, they may just play safe by looking for different
solutions.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world
to a specific
exemption in the US. In the UK the actual right that is infringed is to
use the software.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice
it.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
License-discuss
can publish them. Telephone directories and
maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation
is truly independent.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam
John Cowan wrote:
David Woolley scripsit:
Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the
fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and
maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation
is truly independent.
Maps, I hasten
some rights are restricted without it.
If there really is no intellectual property in the components you
mention, they don't need, and can't have a licence.
Also note that, in the UK, some of your examples would be protected by
copyright law (database copyrights).
--
David Woolley
Emails
that is compatible
with open source.
Creating a contract where no money changes hands can be difficult.
You are creating the opposite of a licence; you are imposing
restrictions where none previously existed.
IANAL TINLA.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever
John Cowan wrote:
You can't restrict how people use copyrighted works by reason of the
copyright alone: you can only control how they copy, distribute, or
modify them.
I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is
restricted under UK copyright law.
--
David
Imagine if you went to a store and say a display of chairs. Imagine the
price
tag said Non-commercial sitters: free; commercial sitters: $100. Imagine
I'm sure I could find counters to even this, point, although they tend
to involve the fact that commercial buyers buy through different
You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan
and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with
respect to the OSL.
Two licenses with different effective terms; there is not one OSL, but
one for each of the 100+ countries in the world. It means
think the terms of the OSL are different, or will be interpreted
differently, in those other countries? It is true that the OSL -- and
The fact that you said that the choice of law was determined by the
licensor; if it is unlikely to change, there will be less uncertainty
for licensees if it
This is a great question. I look forward to the group's response on this
one.
This is an off topic question, as the GPL has already been accepted.
In Europe, I believe this would normally be covered by moral rights.
However, the Red Hat licence attempts to require that you remove all
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not at all. The exception only means that the license does not apply to
certain works. It does not say that those works cannot have any license at
Which means that there are no copyright permissions for the library,
and therefore those works, as
Martin Wolters [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
You can find a few open source projects on the web that use the so
called guile license which is the GPL + the following paragraph:
As a special exception, if you link this library with other files
to produce an executable, this
David Johnson wrote:
As long as I obey the law with regards to copyright, then it is
impossible
for me to violate the GPL. Thus I am safe in not agreeing to it.
That means that you never download the software
from a distribution site, or copy it off borrowed media,
and never redistribute
69 matches
Mail list logo
