[License-discuss] Moderator note

I've just cleared the moderation backlog again. List members should note that e-mail with multiple recipients on cc may trigger moderation even if you are a list member, and you may wish to trim the list of addressees if you are responding to a long thread. S.

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal to revise (and move?) the CC0 FAQ

such a thing? S. -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Meshed Insights Ltd * *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Meshed Insights Ltd * *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816 ___ License-discuss mailing list License

Re: [License-discuss] Illumina Open Source License

-- Simon Phipps*, OSI President* +44 238 098 7027 or +1 415 683 7660 : www.opensource.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] Dual License for CC0

On 3 Apr 2014 00:59, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Wilson, Andrew scripsit: Interesting point, though. I'd speculate that if the embedded public license fallback inside CC0 is ever sent to OSI as a stand-alone license, it would be approved. It is mighty similar in effect to

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Simon Phipps*, OSI President* +44 238 098 7027 or +1 415 683 7660 : www.opensource.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why standard licenses?

that text used to be on the home page). S. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do. Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote: Care to propose an improvement? On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro

Re: [License-discuss] 3-clause BSD with additional clause forbidding key disclosure

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

Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft

___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Simon Phipps*, OSI President* +44 238 098 7027 or +1 415 683 7660 : www.opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

[Removing cross-posting] It's hard to see why this Apache-specific discussion is being redirected to OSI's mailing list and I suggest we end the conversation unless there is a specific and well-defined question for us to answer. Thanks, Simon ___

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Zluty Sysel wrote: > The problem comes with acknowledging the usage of this codebase in > binary distributions. Some of the future users of this source code are > also our current customers, and some of these customers do not want to >

Re: [License-discuss] Does adding this condition to the MIT license make it non-OSI compliant or non-compatible with GPL / LGPL?

Not OSD compatible. On 6 Dec 2015 8:56 p.m., "Marc Laporte" wrote: > Hi! > > bpmn-js is a BPMN 2.0 diagram modeling and rendering toolkit. > > The license is here: > https://github.com/bpmn-io/bpmn-js/blob/master/LICENSE > > which is the MIT license with the addition of: >

Re: [License-discuss] CDDL 1.0 vs. 1.1

> > -- > Mike Milinkovich > mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > -- Simon P

Re: [License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0

gt; > Mark > ___ > License-review mailing list > license-rev...@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > L

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

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] OSI equivalent

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:17 PM, David Woolley wrote: > On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > >> Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved >> licenses? >> > > I would have thought that any such document would

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

Hi Richard, On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I really like the approach as it currently exists. But why is use of > CC0 necessary? If some work of the US government is in the public > domain by virtue of the Copyright Act, there is no need to use

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

. But license terms applied after the fact are surely outside the scope of the approval process? If OSI wants to get into the business of certifying that software is open source, rather than that licenses are, it will need a new process... S. -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was > addressing this question to Simon Phipps: > > > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? > > Or Joh

[License-discuss] Moderator Advice

I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid cross-posting to avoid this. Thanks, Simon ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org