I posted this question to the contact form at opensource.org, which sent
me an automated response suggesting (among other things) posting the
question to this list, which I thought was a good idea.
I like copyleft licences preventing derivative works from being
re-monopolized, but every copyleft
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 09:17 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't require making the source code available, but
recipients of binaries will always be free to make derivative works by
reverse engineering the binaries
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:58 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Software has special problems that CC's classes of licences don't need
to address. I have no problem reverse-engineering the construction of a
novel to determine how to write my own. (There cannot be a proprietary
secret sauce, no
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 18:13 +, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz wrote:
The Simple Public License (SimPL) is a lawyer-written, OSI-approved, plain
language and relatively short copyleft license. It's available on the OSI
website.
Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't seen that one before, and I'm
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 06:47 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
So, convenience, yay. I wish you luck with that campaign.
Which campaign? I thought we were having a discussion.
I'm sorry, but _who_ exactly are you saying is advocating abolition of
copyright? And what colour is the sky in their
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 08:32 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015 4:04 AM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com
wrote:
Really? Then do the BSD and ISC licences also violate the OSD and
FSD,
because they don't
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 11:56 +0530, Sagar wrote:
> Do you think the community will be interested in a shorter license?
You might be interested in the Free Public License, which is currently
under review on the license-review list [1], and has been recommended
for consideration by the OSI board
On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 13:40 +0100, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> On 20/01/2017 00:20, Tim Makarios wrote:
>
> > Or is there some legal theory by
> > which the copyright holders are considered to be the licensors, but the
> > distributor is considered to be the one to who
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:01 +, David Woolley wrote:
> More generally on this topic, the requirement to include the copyright
> and licence in the permissive licences is only really codifying best
> practice. That's especially true for open source derivatives, where the
> implied warranty
9 matches
Mail list logo
