Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread John Cowan
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: the only opinion that really matters is that of the copyright holder who > has chosen to use a particular license. Up to a point, Minister. After that point, the only opinions that really matters are the judges'. --

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread Simon Phipps
Y RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent > > > > "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > > writ

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread John Sullivan
"Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" writes: > --===0423943140736445875== > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; > micalg=SHA1; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540" > >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-16 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL? In my opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:17 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source]

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and p

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison
> I was afraid of that... and so is our Legal department :(. We want to issue > good general guidance to everyone in our workforce, but at the moment that > appears to be 'go talk with Legal'. > > As for the image by Dr. Wheeler, it doesn't seem to have come through; can > you try resending

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 02/15/2017 11:05 AM, Kevin Fleming wrote: I see the image in his email, so it was indeed sent out by the list server. It must have been eaten by something on your end, unfortunately. It might be best to send a URL to where it can be found instead. http://imgur.com/a/Zr5Q3 JD -- Unless

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Kevin Fleming
I see the image in his email, so it was indeed sent out by the list server. It must have been eaten by something on your end, unfortunately. It might be best to send a URL to where it can be found instead. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

2017-02-15 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:06 PM > To: License Discussion Mailing List > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: