does not.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Zluty Sysel [mailto:zluty.sy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 5:16 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD with additional clause
forbidding key disclosure
Hi there,
On Thu
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Zluty Sysel zluty.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction would
not be OSD-compliant? Do you think it could be reworded so that it
does become compliant?
The Open Source Definition by Open Source Initiative (as well
Hi there,
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Zluty Sysel zluty.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue however is that there is a certain reluctance not to include
this in the source code license, since one of the .c files
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 Wednesday 4. February 2015 15.37, Zluty Sysel wrote:
The issue here is one of trust from stakeholders that do not have
enough familiarity with the open source movement.
They do not need to know the technical issues. Microsofts shareholders do not
know how Microsoft distributes any secrets
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 03/02/15 17:21, Zluty Sysel wrote:
I have a set of source files that I would like to open source using a
standard 3-Clause BSD but my company would not like that a certain set
of Private Keys used for authentication be
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Cinly Ooi cinly@gmail.com wrote:
I would probably refactor the code so the authentication key (or routine)
goes into a separate file (authentication file) and distribute that file
under a different license. Everything except that will go open source and
On 5 February 2015 at 17:33, Johnny A. Solbu joh...@solbu.net wrote:
On Wednesday 4. February 2015 15.37, Zluty Sysel wrote:
The issue here is one of trust from stakeholders that do not have
enough familiarity with the open source movement.
They do not need to know the technical issues.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Zluty Sysel zluty.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue however is that there is a certain reluctance not to include
this in the source code license, since one of the .c files contains a
very distinct placeholder (set to NULL) for the Private Key in it. The
clause
Hi all,
I have a set of source files that I would like to open source using a
standard 3-Clause BSD but my company would not like that a certain set
of Private Keys used for authentication be disclosed along with the
code. Instead the source files to be made into an open source project
use an
I would probably refactor the code so the authentication key (or routine)
goes into a separate file (authentication file) and distribute that file
under a different license. Everything except that will go open source and
instruction to users to replace the authentication file.
You decide how much
On 03/02/15 17:21, Zluty Sysel wrote:
I have a set of source files that I would like to open source using a
standard 3-Clause BSD but my company would not like that a certain set
of Private Keys used for authentication be disclosed along with the
code.
You don't need to write a new license
12 matches
Mail list logo
