[After an absence of some time, the board has asked me to resurrect
the formal license committee reports. This is the first one. Comments
and suggestions on format, content, etc. are welcome.]
This email is my report for licenses currently submitted to the OSI.
If anybody disagrees with my
On Apr 14, 2004, at 11:26 PM, Russell Nelson wrote:
Unfortunately, even after two tries there have been insufficient
comments on the Adaptive Public License. Maybe the third's the charm?
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
--
Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged
to infringe a
Committee Report
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
--
Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged
Hi Russell. I am still hoping to get approval for the Adaptive Public
License. I have attached our follow-up from the last License Committee
Report.
--Carmen Leeming
Carmen Leeming writes:
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913
[ note the addition of the Adaptive Public License at the end. There
have STILL not been sufficient comments on the Adaptive Public
License. -russ ]
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
The board voted on Thursday afternoon to accept the
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright
software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed
in the United States.
The only serious concern that I can see is that the license
On 02/17/04:07/2, Russell Nelson wrote:
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we
should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word
utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same
thing and avoids a phony formality.
Title: Fair
Just to precede my statements with a warning that they are as it seems to
me. I am not a lawyer, so my opinions could use any [dis|]qualifications.
On 02/17/04:07/2, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed
source code to inform his
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
I think the NASA Open Source Agreement is worthy of OSI's approval - - with
revision, but it also raises issues worthy of discussion and, perhaps,
adjustment to the OSD since the internationalization of intellectual
property law will likely raise similar open source licensing issues for
other
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Regarding the issue concerning whether NASA may license software it cannot
copyright in the U.S., the answer is yes, notwithstanding that significant
harm to the conception of public domain for digital works is likely to
follow.
And if
My license does not appear on your list:
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob
License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure
that the license
Zooko O'Whielacronx writes:
So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the
(ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In
addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also
prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar
Carmen Leeming writes:
Title: Adaptive Public License
Submission:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob
License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure
that the license had
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
--
We've sat on this license submission for far too long. It's a clever
and innovative
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we
should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word
utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same
thing and avoids a phony formality.
Title: Fair License
Submission:
Original:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
On 2004.02.17 17:43 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
[snip]
So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the
(ideally
edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to
approving
licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the
proliferation of
20 matches
Mail list logo
