Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Rick Moen wrote: The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own > licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's > copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. > Indeed; I should

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does > most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small > interactive main program which provides the command line. This main > program is provided in two versions. One

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to license-discuss. In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > GPL dual licensing? The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

esday, June 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com>; Joe Kiniry <kin...@freeandfair.us> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Brent Turner wrote: I assume this is not relevant as I am only interested in public elections - > which is where the corps I mentioned dwell-- and there would be no reason > for government to be hostile to GPL .so under that reasoning

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner wrote: John. Can you explain why a group such as Oset or FFE would not want to > simply use GPL ? I don't know those organizations. But if you issue software under the GPL, you reduce your market share by people who want

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to > the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully > compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

I have seen github repositories with MIT or GPL dual licensing (essentially same as what you say). The explanation was that they wanted to use MIT (as is common in Node/JavaScript circles) but also wanted to be GPL compatible, so had added that as an explicit option. (The particular project then

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

yet. Joe > > > /Larry > > > > > > *From:* Joe Kiniry [mailto:kin...@freeandfair.us] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:13 PM > *To:* John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> > *Cc:* Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; Brent Turner < > turnerbre...@gmai

Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your license questions. I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing strategies for a licensor that makes sense to me are