On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Regardless of whether a library is licensed under the GPL or the LGPL, a
licensee will have to disclose *source code* of the library and *source
code* of derivative works of the library.
If you agree with the FSF's position on what a derivative work
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
Really? That's not wise.
How would the choice of license
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the
On 1 January 2013 17:08, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL
also considered unfree when applied to
Arromdee [mailto:arrom...@rahul.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:08 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking?
(Attribution Provision)
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority
Would that we all had infinite budgets for going to court :-) But short
of having them, many businesses choose, quite sensibly, to err on the
conservative side of this sort of issue and will honor the license
whether or not a court would make them do so. This will also get them
through an MA
Quoting Ken Arromdee (arrom...@rahul.net):
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.
Some
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of
crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have
to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
Is the GPL
Sorry, I left out a crucial word:
As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to
effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party
competing use.
^ commercial
As I said
Therefore should say on all interface screens
Foo, a project by Google or, if a fork: Bar, a
fork of the Google project Foo with a link back
to its github repo.
This requirement is just too asymmetric. What about
credit to the database glue you use? What about the
language? What
Eitan Adler wrote:
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote:
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.
E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a
I have noticed that a lot of the discussion occurring is on section 7
of the GPL license; so I feel the need to alleviate those concerns and
tell you outright that what I am considering for my SaaS Startup.
I.e.: FreeBSD license with two added provisions:
1. Badgeware (as you call it)
ldr ldr scripsit:
1. Badgeware (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of
the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains:
Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname) or
Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project
name](github.com/projectname
You have
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.
E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:36 AM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
ldr ldr
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote:
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.
E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it
Aren't
You know what, I think I am!
Thank you so much, this is the reason I joined the license-discuss
mailing-list =D
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote:
John: I'd be happy with proprietary
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success.
OK, I'll see about that.
http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html
Offline, alas.
It's reachable now. I'll soon be mirroring it on my
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of
badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the
example cited by the original poster:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
goes well beyond what the
Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a
hurry while working on other things):
Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense
is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a
perception that a modest badgeware
I am looking for a BSD/MIT style license with a clause requiring
attribution.
E.g.: This project was created by Google therefore should say on all
interface screens Foo, a project by Google or if a fork: Bar, a fork of
the Google project Foo with a link from Foo back to its github repo.
Can you
On Monday 17. December 2012 02.14, ldr ldr wrote:
Can you recommend such a license?
There is the BSD 2-Clause License.
It says in part in the first paragraph «... provided that the following
conditions are met:»
Then add your special attribution requirements as part of the license
conditions.
ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com writes:
E.g.: This project was created by Google therefore should say on all
interface screens Foo, a project by Google or if a fork: Bar, a
fork of the Google project Foo with a link from Foo back to its
github repo.
I'm not sure a license that has such
Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net):
You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm
not mistaken, all of them require attribution.
They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of
the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license
But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be
OSI approved?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting ldr ldr (stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com):
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license
Those are not open source. Moreover:
But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
It all hangs on the word reasonable in the definition of permitted
restrictions of type 7b: Requiring preservation of specified
reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in
the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
-- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
claiming those are
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent
(FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html
A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which
the licensee has or can give
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that
CPAL is a free software license
30 matches
Mail list logo
