Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus, > wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me, > that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party > withdrew the submission. You're

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" wrote: >If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent >language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that. > >Richard

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 04:17:03PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source > license to the US Government. > > > https://code.gov/ > > "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of > explicit patent language), but

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

ot;lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" <lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> Cc: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source license to the US Government. https://code.gov/ "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of explicit patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets the definition of open source.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > >> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license, >> precisely because it did not grant a patent license. > > As someone who was part of that

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license, > precisely because it did not grant a patent license. As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't accurately summarise its substance: We were in

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

o:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:48 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent > licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me. > Agreed. I only mentioned this hypo to defend my claim that if MIT

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

John, my responses below. This is not legal advice! :-) /Larry From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:58 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required > by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can > be huge. Instead they said simply: "Here is this copyrighted work.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Henrik Ingo wrote: > > MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise > equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license. I just wanted to catch this email client

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

ss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:29 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com <mailto:s

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not > identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there. > I don't, but it was on one of the OSI mailing lists during the discussion of the Brode

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

are copyrights. /Larry From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:19 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On Mon

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/12/2016 10:05 AM, John Cowan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: >> Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe >> that the BSD license is also a patent license. > MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise >

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, John Cowan wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe that the BSD license is also a patent license. MIT is on record as saying that the MIT

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe > that the BSD license is also a patent license. > MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent to the 2-clause

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo" > wrote: >>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

> > So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested, > redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat. _And_ all > of the software is open source. > > Case in point, CentOS did it for *years* before RH started sponsoring them. JD > >

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

One observation on this whole topic. The OSD is a checklist for evaluating licenses as open source, rather than a guide to the available freedoms of the software to which it is applied, even if in most cases those are close to the same thing. To Larry's raising of OSD 7: it has to be taken in

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): > Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The > license shall not require a royalty

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Ben Tilly wrote: > Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > shall not require a royalty or other fee for

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

il.com> > Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM > To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi" <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> > Subject: Re: [License-dis

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

urce.org> > Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> " <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

k.i...@avoinelama.fi<mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any license of any kind. The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the inability to continue

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any license of any kind. The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent infringement is a "price". However you are unable to use the

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

-Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:01 PM To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? On 12/6/16, 3:33

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo" wrote: >The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking >an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate >file

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote: Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent > grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD. > Inevitably so, since the BSD license family either grants no patent rights (if you read it

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo" > henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote: >>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo" wrote: >On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana >wrote: >> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of > software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent > license grants or nonasserts? (This has been done by some other >

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On 2016-12-02 6:26, Richard Fontana wrote > does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise > OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not > be considered open source? I argued here that the scope of the patent termination provision is inconsistent with the

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:26:03PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > > The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the > licensing of React Another reference: Facebook has published a brief FAQ on what it calls the "Facebook BSD+Patents license":

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Personally, I am conflicted with the idea of exact conditions and requirements of a LICENSE not being fully specified in the LICENSE itself. It almost seems like a way to "get around" at least OSI approval, plus it adds (IMO) confusion. It is quite possible to have an OSI approved licensed s/w

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Interesting, I hadn’t heard about the React licensing yet. Thanks. > The 'Additional Grant' has attracted a fair amount of criticism (as > did an earlier version which apparently resulted in some revisions by > Facebook). There was a recent blog post by Robert Pierce of El Camino > Legal [3]