Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Kevin Fleming
Another option is to contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, which represents a number of people who hold copyrights on code in the Linux kernel and do pursue violators, primarily to get access to the source code for everyone's benefit. You likely wouldn't be surprised to learn that they have a

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] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com): > Rick: This is enlightening and well written! Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the public schools, as Kelly Jones is? Teachers are among my heroes. A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Rick Moen wrote: and ext> [...] > The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to > comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that > were written by others, including the Linux kernel, > [...] > As

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)
> -Original Message- > From: John Sullivan [mailto:jo...@fsf.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:10 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

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

2017-02-16 Thread Simon Phipps
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: John Sullivan [mailto:jo...@fsf.org] > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:10 AM > > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)

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'. --