Re: [License-discuss] License question
Hi Stefan, I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they are accepted by the OSI. From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the case is generic. Being generic, I looked for more information and imagine that you're the person behind a certain company in Himmelkron. For that kind of information you usually need to consult a lawyer and/or consult an expert on this field. With kind regards,Nuno Brito 03.05.2015, 22:21, "Stefan Kuhn" :Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.Hi all,apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want. I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it. I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be enforced via a licence.Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my thinking is flawed.Thanks,Stefan___License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss@opensource.orghttp://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- http://triplecheck.netphone: +49 615 146 03187 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?
Note that the GPL is one of the "least-understood" licenses around, even by some of its supporters who make the most outrageous claims about linking. :-) From professional experience I see some non-GPL supporters top the charts in outrageous claims about GPL and linking. A particularly interesting case started with "it's just a little bit" on a dialog and then accounted a third of the external resources adopted by a proprietary product as GPL. So I guess we can find examples in both sides. If we are looking for a replacement to "standard" (which in my opinion seemed reasonable when explained and used within a specific context), then I'd guess even "notorious" could become a candidate on a voting poll if the intention is to find an accurate term that encompasses these licenses. With kind regards, Nuno Brito --- spdx: http://triplecheck.de/download phone: +49 615 146 03187 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Is CC BY appropriate for software?
Hi Ray, - What I want in exchange is attribution when somebody uses the source code, modifies it or modifies a derivate of my source code. Have you considered Apache v2 as option? With kind regards, Nuno Brito --- email: nuno.br...@triplecheck.de phone: +49 615 146 03187 On 2014-01-24 09:16, xxl...@web.de wrote: Hi, I am going to release an open source software project on sourceforge. They require a license that is OSI approved. Now I am searching for a license which fits my needs. - It's fine if somebody used for free be it private or for business (i.e. commercial use shall be allowed) - It's fine if somebody uses the source code be it to re-distribute it or to build upon it (re-use and derivated shall be allowed) - It's even fine if somebody makes money from the source code itself or a derivate - What I want in exchange is attribution when somebody uses the source code, modifies it or modifies a derivate of my source code. It seems to me as if a Creative Commons BY license is quite much what I need. Does it cover my constraints? I read that Creative Commons licenses are not really meant to be used for source code. Do I have to choose a different license (which)? Would CC BY be a license which sourceforge accepts? Regards Ray ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?
Hello, What I really want help with is someone to a) proofread the text that I change from html to text, and b) to provide feedback / direction on matters like whether it would be okay to create separate nodes with different names for version x and version x or later licenses on opensource.org [1]. If someone wanted to c) liaise with SPDX on an RDF format or something for how the licenses could be made available to their tools, that would be cool and great for the open source world but not necessary for my purposes. I'm available to help with points a), b) and c). I'm a PHP developer, no experience on Drupal but can help with a prototype on d). My work involves extensive usage of SPDX during licensing compliance activities and this requires creating consistent definitions on our tooling that you find at our site [T1] for describing the licensing situations not yet prescribed by the SPDX working groups. Would be glad to help. With kind regards Nuno Brito [T1] http://www.triplecheck.de/download/ --- email: nuno.br...@triplecheck.de phone: +49 615 146 03187 twitter: @triplechecked On 2013-12-19 16:57, Joe Murray wrote: Thanks, Simon. What I really want help with is someone to a) proofread the text that I change from html to text, and b) to provide feedback / direction on matters like whether it would be okay to create separate nodes with different names for version x and version x or later licenses on opensource.org [1]. If someone wanted to c) liaise with SPDX on an RDF format or something for how the licenses could be made available to their tools, that would be cool and great for the open source world but not necessary for my purposes. If someone with Drupal experience d) wanted to help with the design and implementation that would be a bonus, but I'm ready to shoulder that. Joe Murray, PhD President, JMA Consulting joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray 416.466.1281 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: This sounds useful and I'd support the idea if a group were willing to make it happen. I suggest a staged implementation with the "Popular Licenses" being made available first and the others set up to return a placeholder message or error. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Joe Murray wrote: Would it be possible for OSI to make available a machine readable list of the licenses approved by OSI? The format - a csv, xml or some other file in a repository, or a REST or some other service from opensource.org [1] - is not as important as that the content be authoritative. There may be an official specification for how software licenses should be made available, but I am not aware of it. http://spdx.org/licenses/ [2] provides a list of licenses but it too is not designed for automated use (though it might be scrapable). Ideally, it seems like the recognition of licenses by OSI should produce some output that could be used by SPDX tools, but this request is a bit simpler. Background: CiviCRM would like the set of licenses in this form in order to ensure that any extensions that we list on civicrm.org [3] and provide auto-download services for via civicrm.org [3] are using licenses approved by OSI. However, the request seems of broader interest. Karl Fogel suggested I pose it to these two lists. CiviCRM decided to try to up its game with respect to licensing of its extensions partly as a result of someone coming across http://www.zdnet.com/github-improves-open-source-licensing-polices-718213/ [4]. While early on most civicrm.org [3] listed extensions were hosted on drupal.org [5] and thus were guaranteed to have a GPL license, now most of our new listings are for software on github. CiviCRM would also like to 'assist' extension developers in actually including an accurate license text file in their extension by checking it is present in the extension's root directory and that its text matches what they are listing as the license. I've been asked to liaise with OSI on the availability of such a machine readable list of these licenses. Possible implementation strategy: If OSI decides it would like to do this, it may be technically as simple as copying the licenses on opensource.org [1] from one type of node to another, then doing a bit of cleanup to support some requirements for automated use. Looking at opensource.org [6], I see a content type was at some point created specifically for licenses, though no content has been posted of that type, and all the licenses are currently created as nodes with content type=page. In terms of fields for automated use, it would be useful to move the short title into its own field rather than having it in parentheses at the end of the long title, and to make a plain text version of licenses suitable for inclusion as a LICENSE.txt file in source code available in addition to the current html formatted ones. If the approved licenses on
