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

Hi Shahar. You already got many answers, but none seem to be complete, so let me have a go... On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Shahar Or wrote: > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine > to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not

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

Yes, but that's because US Federal Government works generally don't have copyright attached within the US, so CC0 was the best option. That may not be the case here. Thanks, Cem Karan --- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not

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

On Nov 07, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Shahar Or wrote: Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by

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

Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they? And what do you mean by "they won’t use your

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

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

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

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to > CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. >

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

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

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

I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

Diane Peters dixit: >"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication AIUI (after several attempts at reading it) CC0 does not licence the work but the right to act in the stead of the work’s author, therefore allowing everyone to put any licence on it. bye, //mirabilos

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication is effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a CD/DVD-ROM) and copies. If it is not, then the permissive license affects only the copies it is attached to." The final sentence is incorrect, at

Re: [License-discuss] resolving ambiguities in OSD (was [License-review])

> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:13:23 -0700 > From: Bruce Perens > To: License submissions for OSI review > Subject: Re: [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: > For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License] > > Most of

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]

I've moved this to license-discuss because I'm not sure this is part of discussion of any licence being evaluated, any more. I could be wrong (and am certainly not criticising upthread posts). Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): > Again, OSI would be well-served by actually writing down the

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Lindsay Patten wrote: > Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public > domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work > itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

It's the former if you're using CC0. The work itself -- in whatever form and whatever the number of copies -- is placed as nearly as possible in the public domain. You could try to enforce a license on a particular copy, but you can't enforce it as a matter of copyright and related rights (as

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

Thank you for your quick response! Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public domain while maintaining a license on another copy?  Or is it the work itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce copyright on any copies has been surrendered?

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten wrote:. > > My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed > the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a > particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that. If the user

[License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

Hello, I'm hoping I can get a better understanding of the licenses associated with MakeHuman. MakeHuman is a program that allows you to generate 3D human characters, adjusting numerous parameters such as height, weight, gender, race, facial and body details, clothing, etc. etc.  The program

Re: [License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users

Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it > is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to > anyone who would like to look for it. > > We include a number of components in

Re: [License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users

Hi Jesper: On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it > is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to > anyone who would like to look for it. > >

[License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users

Hi, We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to anyone who would like to look for it. We include a number of components in our application and I am looking for guidance to how we handle the

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 Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:00 PM > To: Richard Fontana > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re:

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject) > > Cem, > >

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 11:28 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject) > > > On Tue, Sep 5,

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

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > The issue is that > 'voluntary' doesn't mean the same thing as 'gratuitous'; I work for the > Government on a voluntary, but not gratuitous basis. I certainly hope that nobody in the

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

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Ben Hilburn > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 2:06 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Hi all - > > I figured

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 John Cowan > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:22 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

Hi all - I figured I would throw in my thoughts for this discussion. IANAL and all of the usual disclaimers. My expertise, as it pertains to this thread, is really in the building & sustainment of F/OSS communities and projects, albeit outside of the government space. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at

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

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world > wars occur? How do they define a world war? What if we luck out and no > world wars occur? > No, it's that the

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: (no subject)

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Cem, > > Yes, only

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 Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 8:26 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the

Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)

Cem, Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our view was that a project that never had a contribution from a non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm glad though that

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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law. The various countries still differ, even in the duration of the protection (France, for example, has an extra clause to

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 Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the

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

Hi list, during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a _lot_ of possibilities. Of course… >Making CC0 + a patent release

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

We're doing something very close to, but not quite the same as what DDS is suggesting; we're stating that if a work (or portion of a work) does not have copyright attached within the US, then that work (or portion of a work) is licensed world-wide under CC0. All other works are licensed under

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

Cem, Has your organization considered using the approach that the Defense Digital Service is taking. It seems like their use of a INTENT file that clearly calls out the fact that the code written by federal employees as not being subject to copyright would address the "copyfraud" concern. >

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, 2017 2:32 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

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

CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not assurance it would pass. Neither seems likely. Easier to just to shrug their

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, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source]

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

I'm on active duty at Treasury until the close of business on Thursday, myself. I wouldn't presume for either of us to lobby. Filtering issues up the chain for The President to lobby The Congress about is the rule for the two of us in many cases. The main problem I see in using licenses for

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 Chris Travers > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:14 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US

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

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM >> To: Stephen

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 Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM > To: Stephen Michael Kellat > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss]

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

Since I'm a Federal employee, and since putting together an Open Source policy for the Army Research Laboratory is part of my job, I'm barred from directly lobbying Congress on this matter [1-3]. ARL's legal counsel have also told me that I'm not allowed to encourage or discourage anyone to

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

John Cowan dixit: >Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to) >treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of >copyright >in country B as well. OK, but, as you said yourself… >The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the >EU countries

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Thorsten Glaser scripsit: Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, > subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means > for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ > right law

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

Stephen Michael Kellat dixit: >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public Domain in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, worse hamful. Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

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

> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat > wrote: > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix > this to be public domain globally is best done

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

As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law. A small rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in

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

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the

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

>> Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government >> may >> have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have >> copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has > > How is their position if the works are in the Public

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may > have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have > copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been

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 Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the > US

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

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may >have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have >copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has How is their

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government

Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes and give some clearer

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?

ping And to Richard Fontana... **PING** Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Is Sun Identity Manager (Oracle Waveset) Open Source compliant ?

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

[License-discuss] Is Sun Identity Manager (Oracle Waveset) Open Source compliant ?

Hello all, maybe this question is far to generic. But in the moment I do not have any more information. Is the old Sun Identity Manager (Oralce Waveset) product Open Source compliant with the Open Source license terms and conditions

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Note that this only applies in the USA, not, for example, > in Germany, where such a thing is impossible. > Well, yes and no. It is impossible to transfer the moral rights, but since 2008 the right of exploitation of

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

David Woolley dixit: > 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, Note that this only applies

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

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

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

On Saturday 29. July 2017 11.16, David Woolley wrote: > 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? The copyright holder stopped working on the project in 2005. I am continuing the development, but

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

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

Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

My layman understanding is that that is exactly what it says. On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote: > Hi. > I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip > The code licence is stated as follows: > > == > * This program is free software; you can

[License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?

Hi. I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip The code licence is stated as follows: == * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2

[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?

What is the current progress on the NOSA 2.0 license? I just got out of a meeting with some NASA lawyers, and they want to know where it's going, and if it's stuck, why it's stuck. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[License-discuss] Some formerly-approved licenses not listed under opensource.org/licenses/ (was: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions)

There was a 2012 discussion [1] about some licenses (e.g. the AFL-1.0 and AFL-1-1, etc.) which were approved by the OSI (e.g. [2,3]) but are not currently listed on the website [4,5]. As of at least 2005, Larry (the AFL author) was saying that the earlier licenses were superseded, but it didn't

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that > impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. With great respect: It's not that. The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Rick Moen wrote: The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own > licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's > copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. > Indeed; I should

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Yes, Simon and Rick, I'm sorry I misunderstood Simon's use of the term "moderated." As a moderator of another opensource.org list, I can assure you I wasn't being disrespectful of moderators. That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that impose tricky processing

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org): > I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others > avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated. I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts. (My

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does > most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small > interactive main program which provides the command line. This main > program is provided in two versions. One

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was > addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > > > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? >

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the word

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Johnny Solbu wrote: > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that > the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. I did a "reply-all" in this thread on purpose, because I had reason to believe that at least some of the people CC'd and

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is > that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when > responding. FWIW, if more MUAs (mail user agents) were updated to become compliant with RFC 2369 section 3.4 (as

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote: > I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an > anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid > cross-posting to avoid this. I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my

[License-discuss] Moderator Advice

I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid cross-posting to avoid this. Thanks, Simon ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to license-discuss. In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > GPL dual licensing? The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

John Cowan wrote: > (Nowadays this wouldn't be necessary, as there are drop-in replacements for > readline, but the principle is still the same.) All copyrighted software can have "drop-in replacements" if someone wants to build them. Only patents may prevent that, but that's not the topic

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Brent Turner wrote: I assume this is not relevant as I am only interested in public elections - > which is where the corps I mentioned dwell-- and there would be no reason > for government to be hostile to GPL .so under that reasoning

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner wrote: John. Can you explain why a group such as Oset or FFE would not want to > simply use GPL ? I don't know those organizations. But if you issue software under the GPL, you reduce your market share by people who want

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to > the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully > compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

I have seen github repositories with MIT or GPL dual licensing (essentially same as what you say). The explanation was that they wanted to use MIT (as is common in Node/JavaScript circles) but also wanted to be GPL compatible, so had added that as an explicit option. (The particular project then

Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?

2017-06-18 10:59 GMT-04:00 Thorsten Glaser : Is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s > the stance on it? > The GPLv2 was grandfathered, but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so you'd

[License-discuss] GPLv1?

Hi, is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s the stance on it? It’s probably no real problem, but I maintain software that’s got a very long history, which is GPLv1, and some hosting platforms prescribe an OSI-approved licence.

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Hi Larry, On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Joe Kiniry wrote: > > > In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion > that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, > secondarily, we do not want

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your license questions. I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing strategies for a licensor that makes sense to me are

Re: [License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2

For those wanting UTF-8 coding, please find it attached Greetings, 2017-05-22 13:28 GMT+02:00 Philippe Ombredanne : > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz > wrote: > > The new version of the European Union Public Licence is

[License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2

The new version of the European Union Public Licence is published ! (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 *p. 59–64* ) attached the .txt and some information. Greetings, -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patents & interoperability

International law is a difficult problem to solve, but one that, in my personal opinion, needs to be solved as far as we can reasonably do. It would be embarrassing to have a project Open Sourced, only to have people in one jurisdiction unable to exercise their rights because of a mistake

Re: [License-discuss] Free Public License/0 Clause BSD License with Zlib Warranty Disclaimer

Hello Nate, I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you have found an answer yet. I just have found this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty clause

Re: [License-discuss] Free Public License/0 Clause BSD License with Zlib Warranty Disclaimer

Hello Nate, I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you have found an answer yet. I just have found this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty clause

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > What's the "right" level to scan at? Top-level project-declared LICENSE > file? Or per-file throughout the tree? (Note that often those two measures > don't agree with each other.) MO is that the right level is scan at both levels

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >