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
Quoting Tim Makarios (tjm1...@gmail.com):
[...]
And that's sort of my point, really.
A lot of talk about convenience. Thank you for that, I guess.
And thank you for having reminded us that literary works available under
redistrubution-permitting licences such as CC-BY-SA have typically been
On 01/04/15 17:14, Lawrence espe wrote:
You really don't have to read all that stuff in order to protect your own
work.
But if you want to know what those protections are, you need to
understand what the law says.
You should also pray that you're not sued for software patent
infringement,
Quoting Tim Makarios (tjm1...@gmail.com):
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
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 require the source code of derivative works to be
made available?
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 4/1/15, 5:44 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of
commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial
exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and
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 3/30/15, 10:00 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand and
use as the creative commons ones.
It should be as easy as SC-BY-SA 1.0 with a clear english (or whatever)
description without some debatable political/social
On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand
and use as the creative commons ones.
Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were
How to use CC in software licensing then? Or do we need a specific CC variant
or addendum for code?
On Apr 1, 2015, at 22:37, Tzeng, Nigel H. nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu wrote:
On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Or
And how about the software patent issue (which is a highlight of GPLv3 and
Apache 2.0)
Is this rough equivalents: CC-by ~ 2BSDL, CC=by-sa ~ GPLv2?
On Apr 1, 2015, at 22:37, Tzeng, Nigel H. nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu wrote:
On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting
Then we would need to create a CC-style set of software licenses to solve this
issue, without the manifestos, politics and technicalities.
On Apr 1, 2015, at 23:17, Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote:
How to use CC
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote:
How to use CC in software licensing then? Or do we need a specific CC variant
or addendum for code?
For what it's worth Creative Commons says not to:
In case the point wasn't clear:
You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art
were to attempt that. Short summaries of existing licences would be a
fine start, though I could swear that there have been a few.
It should be remembered that the CC 'human-readable'
On 4/1/15, 1:43 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
I find that assumption vexing enough that, at one point, I proposed to
do a lecture on 'Proven Ways to Use GPLv2 as the Core of a Proprietary
Software Business Model'. (I don't know for sure what the backlash
would have been.)
On 4/1/15, 12:49 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
I should hasten to say that you have a very good point that the Creative
Commons approach has merit, and I wrote my comment far too hastily.
You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art
were to attempt that.
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Very small benefit, large downside as shown by those who've gotten this
wrong.
Creative Commons seems successful and it does not appear that they have
³gotten this wrong².
I should
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
I dislike the presumption that the use of GPL implies support for the FSF
viewpoint. A perspective that the FSF fosters as evidence of how much
they dominate the FOSS world as opposed to say BSD/Apache.
Yes, WE all know this is not true.
I
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
On 4/1/15, 1:43 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
I find that assumption vexing enough that, at one point, I proposed to
do a lecture on 'Proven Ways to Use GPLv2 as the Core of a Proprietary
Software Business Model'. (I don't know
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of
commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial
exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and instead exploit
based on their attempt to re-interpet the
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
It gets political by the second word of the full form of CC! Common
ownership of intellectual property is definitely a political goal.
1. Nigel's claim was merely that the CC-BY-SA licence itself was apolitical.
2. Interpreting the
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
On 01/04/15 18:32, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
So I depend that the CC organization has put forth a best effort in making
sure the human-readable summaries match the legal text.
A significant number of postings on this list are from people who
On 01/04/15 22:17, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
A significant number of postings on this list are from people who
are trying to interpret GPL in a way that would be inconsistent with
any CC-like summary of it. Those people would still try to find
Quoting Maxthon Chan (xcvi...@me.com):
How to use CC in software licensing then? Or do we need a specific CC
variant or addendum for code?
The CC licences have been skillfully crafted for a different problem
space (culural/artistic works), so I'd say that would be generally a bad
idea.
)
-Original Message-
From: Maxthon Chan [mailto:xcvi...@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence
I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my “simple
English BSD equivalent
On 01/04/15 18:32, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
Have I read all the legalese behind the CC licenses? No. I trust the
brand and while I have perused some just as a sanity check I also realize
that I¹m not a lawyer and I would miss the nuances anyway.
So I depend that the CC organization has put
On 01/04/15 15:37, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
CC-BY-SA
Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and
used.
It gets political by the second word of the full form of CC! Common
ownership of intellectual property is definitely a political goal.
A more complete manifesto
How about this copyleft clause for 2BSDL or 3BSDL (that is, add this clause
into the existing clauses of 2BSDL or 3BSDL to make it copyleft) with a
rewritten clause 2 and a new clause 3 (3BSDL’s clause 3 get bumped to clause 4
in this case)
2. Redistributions in binary form of this work or any
Tim Makarios scripsit:
50 words. 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. It does make itself incompatible with
other copyleft licences, though, which seems difficult to
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand
and use as the creative commons ones.
Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were
simple.
Very small benefit, large downside as shown by
Hmm… Would OSI itself be such an organisation?
Since my personal preference of BSDL, I would like to see people writing
BSDL-like clauses for different purposes (like my proposed BSDL-like copyleft
clause) and a developer can just cherry-pick license features they want by
choosing individual
I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my “simple
English BSD equivalent” thread as there are just too many politics and
complexities involved in those licenses and engineers, being
not-so-professional in law, gets confused easily.
I still remembered my days
On 3/31/15, 1:59 PM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote:
I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my
³simple English BSD equivalent² thread as there are just too many
politics and complexities involved in those licenses and engineers, being
not-so-professional in law,
On 3/30/15, 10:00 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
It's an object lesson in why coders should not attempt to draft what are
often on this mailing list termed 'crayon licences'.
A broader point: The quest for the shortest possible licence (of
whatever category) strikes me as solving the
please remove or do not e mail daunevin, he is no longer with us.
On 30-Mar-15, at 10:54 AM, Daunevin Janz wrote:
On 30-Mar-15, at 1:40 AM, Tim Makarios wrote:
I posted this question to the contact form at opensource.org,
which sent
me an automated response suggesting (among other things)
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.
That seems like a non-starter to me. It violates both the OSD
Maxthon Chan scripsit:
Is it favorable to add a copy left clause into 2BSDL to make it copyleft?
You must provide the source code, in its human-preferred format, with
this work or any derivatives of this work you created when
redistributing.
That's pretty much what the Sleepycat license
On 2015-03-30 at 20:40:56, Tim Makarios wrote:
What's the shortest copyleft licence people on this list know of?
You may want to look at copyleft-next since it is an effort to create an
effective but short copyleft license:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next
The latest release (0.3.0) is
Is it favorable to add a copy left clause into 2BSDL to make it copyleft? You
must provide the source code, in its human-preferred format, with this work or
any derivatives of this work you created when redistributing.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 30, 2015, at 18:22, Francois Marier
Then I would like to propose this Copyleft-modified 2BSDL (or its 3BSDL-based
cousin) but how? I would prefer writing the additional clause in the same
fashion of the original clauses though.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 30, 2015, at 22:24, co...@ccil.org wrote:
Maxthon Chan scripsit:
Is
On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count measures
at nearly 800 words.
Isn't the DWTFYL license shorter?
(I can't override the NSFW search on my browser, to find a copy of that
license.)
jonathon
signature.asc
Description:
The wtfpl both isn't copyleft, nor is it a valid copyright license for
software.
On Mar 30, 2015 4:23 PM, jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
measures at nearly 800 words.
Isn't
What does copyleft mean?
The purpose of a copyleft provision in my mind is to make it so that
changes get contributed back. While it is clear that the Sleepycat
license attempts to do so, it does not stop source being available for
a nominal fee under an additional copyright license chosen by
Quoting jonathon (jonathon.bl...@gmail.com):
On 30/03/15 07:40, Tim Makarios wrote
Publication Licence [1], which a more careful (automated) word-count
measures at nearly 800 words.
Isn't the DWTFYL license shorter?
(I can't override the NSFW search on my browser, to find a copy of that
47 matches
Mail list logo
