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
@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the Black Duck Top 20 list of open source licenses. Your list is
the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too personally
...@blackducksoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:52 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
snip
___
License-discuss mailing list
To: license-discuss@opensource.orgmailto:license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Philip Odence suggested:
Hey maybe “well-understood” is a good alternative to “standard.
Note that the GPL is one of the least
ᐧ
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro...@rosenlaw.com lro...@rosenlaw.com
wrote:
Standard is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
Louis:
Consider flipping the FAQ subject to say: Why shouldn't I cook-up your own
home-made license? I think
)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932 Fax: 707-485-1243
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:44 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses
for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about (I believe that
text used to be
on the home page).
Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use approved
licenses
Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word standard is used, some
variant of approved or OSI-approved is a reasonable replacement.
for
software.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:40 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:51 -0400
Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use
approved licenses
Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word standard
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about
(I believe that text used to be on the home page).
Perhaps, but that term has thus been misused. There is absolutely
nothing about
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Miles and others,
Can you correlate what OSI does with what is described at
http://opensource.org/osr-intro?
Personally, I think it's up to OSI to make the case for what they do,
and the extent that they are or are not a standards body. As far as I
can tell, their
...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org
Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other meanings
of standard, when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the term standard is
really confusing...
Specially since the Wiki page does not seem to imply any of the things being
discussed in this thread...
The entry seems
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:20 -0300
Bruno F. Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote:
Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other
meanings of standard, when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the
term standard is really confusing...
I think so too now, in light of this thread
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
John, once again you state the obvious to support an invalid argument:
By the same token, the GPL is a standard open-source license and the
Motosoto Open Source License is not, though both are equally OSI certified.
Do
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested solution, can we use the word common instead of
standard? And our definition of common should be something
relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus
licenses (like the GPL v2) whose
Richard Fontana scripsit:
You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from common?
Well, the most common license is probably GPLV2+, not GPLV2-only.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
All Norstrilians knew that humor was pleasurable corrigible
Apparently so. Because if you agree with the goals of the GPL, you
should probably be using GPL v3+ rather than GPL v2+.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Fontana
font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested solution,
In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the
number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a
million) that utilize each respective license.
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses
The webpage only shows the
: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the
number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a
million) that utilize each respective license.
http
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question is here:
: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to explain
why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of basic point,
I started remedying the problem :)
Draft
Villa
Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: License Discuss
Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea
How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do.
Larry
Sent from my tablet and thus brief
Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote:
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
(and potential website page?) on
why standard licenses?
Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question
26 matches
Mail list logo
