Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. Am I missing it, or is this intended? Even if it is superceded by 2.0, I would have expected it listed. It's barely superceded, after all, and I suppose projects may use it. It is in the by-category list, but not the alphabetical list, it looks like. Karl, thoughts on how best to remedy that? Added to the alpha list. Sorry, I missed the part of your earlier mail directed to me, but see that you have this fixed now (yay). ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
* Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org [2013-01-03 08:27]: Very very minor nitpick is there should be an extra break before the Popular Licenses header to make the whitespace look even with the other blocks of text...at least for the way it renders in my browsers (safari and firefox). Sigh, I was hoping that was just me. :/ I've fixed it. -- Martin Michlmayr Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. Am I missing it, or is this intended? Even if it is superceded by 2.0, I would have expected it listed. It's barely superceded, after all, and I suppose projects may use it. It is in the by-category list, but not the alphabetical list, it looks like. Karl, thoughts on how best to remedy that? Added to the alpha list. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
Hello license-discuss, Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks more useful than it used to be. Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the others don't. Is this intended? A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. Am I missing it, or is this intended? Even if it is superceded by 2.0, I would have expected it listed. It's barely superceded, after all, and I suppose projects may use it. Sorry if I'm missing existing discussions on these trivial points, the subject has many threads... On 1/2/13, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: Hi, license-discuss: Based on the discussions we've had here over the second half of 2012, I've published a revised version of opensource.org/licenses this morning. A few minor tweaks were made to the last draft based on comments here; the biggest being a reference to the FAQ and inclusion of several questions from the FAQ. I've also included a reference to the proliferation report so that it is more clear how the list of popular, etc. was arrived at, and strengthened the language around the links to the complete lists so that it is more clear that those licenses are also approved and usable. The page is still a work in progress, in two ways: 1) Cosmetically: suggestions on grammar, layout, or uncontroversial content (e.g., adding links to other FAQ questions; otherwise beefing up the content) are still very welcome, either in this thread or by personal email. 2) Substantively: as has been pointed out and discussed at length, the current categories could stand revision, probably including more objective criteria. PLEASE do not use this thread to discuss that issue. If you have specific, concrete, suggestions, please start new threads, or respond to my older thread on objective criteria. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
On 03/01/13 14:19, Engel Nyst wrote: A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. The canonical URL for any link anyone is creating is: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/ Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
Happy New year! The new landing page looks good. Very very minor nitpick is there should be an extra break before the Popular Licenses header to make the whitespace look even with the other blocks of text...at least for the way it renders in my browsers (safari and firefox). Regards, Nigel On 1/2/13 9:15 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes: Based on the discussions we've had here over the second half of 2012, I've published a revised version of opensource.org/licenses this morning. A few minor tweaks were made to the last draft based on comments here; the biggest being a reference to the FAQ and inclusion of several questions from the FAQ. I've also included a reference to the proliferation report so that it is more clear how the list of popular, etc. was arrived at, and strengthened the language around the links to the complete lists so that it is more clear that those licenses are also approved and usable. The page is still a work in progress, in two ways: 1) Cosmetically: suggestions on grammar, layout, or uncontroversial content (e.g., adding links to other FAQ questions; otherwise beefing up the content) are still very welcome, either in this thread or by personal email. 2) Substantively: as has been pointed out and discussed at length, the current categories could stand revision, probably including more objective criteria. PLEASE do not use this thread to discuss that issue. If you have specific, concrete, suggestions, please start new threads, or respond to my older thread on objective criteria. FWIW, I think the new landing page is terrific, and about a trajillion times more useful to newcomers than the old landing page was. Nice job! -Karl ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks more useful than it used to be. Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the others don't. Is this intended? Somewhat intended: the unversioned licenses have either (1) only one version in wide use (e.g., CDDL) or (2) multiple versions in very wide use (e.g., GPL). MPL and Apache have older versions that the authors have requested we deprecate, and that in practice are less widely used because But you're right that we could think about clarifying that. A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. Am I missing it, or is this intended? Even if it is superceded by 2.0, I would have expected it listed. It's barely superceded, after all, and I suppose projects may use it. It is in the by-category list, but not the alphabetical list, it looks like. Karl, thoughts on how best to remedy that? Thanks, Engel! Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu wrote: Happy New year! The new landing page looks good. Very very minor nitpick is there should be an extra break before the Popular Licenses header to make the whitespace look even with the other blocks of text...at least for the way it renders in my browsers (safari and firefox). Sigh, I was hoping that was just me. :/ I was surprised that h2 + our default stylesheet didn't get that right- I'll consult with the technical team and see what advice they can give on fixing the layout. Thanks- Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks more useful than it used to be. Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the others don't. Is this intended? Somewhat intended: the unversioned licenses have either (1) only one version in wide use (e.g., CDDL) To be clear here, I mean CDDL 1.1's wide use in comparison to other versions of CDDL. CDDL's popularity (or lack thereof outside of Sun/Oracle-sponsored projects) is obviously problematic for the current categorization system, as I acknowledged in my blog post ( http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/03/a-revised-osi-open-source-licenses-page/ ). Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Published revised opensource.org/licenses page
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes: Based on the discussions we've had here over the second half of 2012, I've published a revised version of opensource.org/licenses this morning. A few minor tweaks were made to the last draft based on comments here; the biggest being a reference to the FAQ and inclusion of several questions from the FAQ. I've also included a reference to the proliferation report so that it is more clear how the list of popular, etc. was arrived at, and strengthened the language around the links to the complete lists so that it is more clear that those licenses are also approved and usable. The page is still a work in progress, in two ways: 1) Cosmetically: suggestions on grammar, layout, or uncontroversial content (e.g., adding links to other FAQ questions; otherwise beefing up the content) are still very welcome, either in this thread or by personal email. 2) Substantively: as has been pointed out and discussed at length, the current categories could stand revision, probably including more objective criteria. PLEASE do not use this thread to discuss that issue. If you have specific, concrete, suggestions, please start new threads, or respond to my older thread on objective criteria. FWIW, I think the new landing page is terrific, and about a trajillion times more useful to newcomers than the old landing page was. Nice job! -Karl ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
