Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Heard loud and clear re usefulness of the alphabetical list; it will not go away. I'm surprised by that, so (in a different thread) I'd welcome more detail on what people use it for. On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Gwyn Murray wrote: > Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of the alphabetical > list here. > > G. > On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: >>> 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the >>> current http://opensource.org/licenses/) would say (hopefully all >>> changes self-explanatory): >>> >>> " >>> Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source >>> Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used, >>> modified, and redistributed without restriction. >> >> I don't agree with the "in essence" part. >> >>> * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make >>> sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and >>> http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than >>> through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone. >>> (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list >>> altogether, which I personally would be fine with.) >> >> I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW. >> >> - Richard >> >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Incorrect. The only part I'm specifically against is the section: "The following OSI-approved licenses are popular, widely used, or have strong communities: [Insert the current list of popular/widely used/strong community licenses]" The reason I am opposed to this specific part is because in my opinion it is PART OF the categorization issue. That itself cannot be made "off-topic" unless someone is inclined to pull shenanigans. I don't believe this to be the case but the inclusion of this section into the proposal changes it from a simple small edit to the website into something more, ESPECIALLY with the suggestion that the alphabetical list could safely be done away with. Given the issues with categorization the more neutral position would be to ONLY retain the alphabetical list. On 11/12/12 1:39 PM, "John Cowan" wrote: >Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: > >> Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd >> just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone >> because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list >>of >> "popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the revised landing >> page. > >Okay, you're against the change; the rest is off-topic for this thread. > >-- >BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD [email protected] >BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >___ >License-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > If you want to update main "Open Source Licenses" landing page that isn't > mostly blank with two links then I'd move some of the FAQ answers to the > landing page. Discussion regarding what permissive and copyleft means > would be helpful for a newcomer. I like the idea of using FAQ content to help flesh this out. Any other suggestions for specific "most valuable" FAQ questions that could be copied to or linked from the page? (From Nigel or anyone else?) [I'd also repeat my call of a few weeks back- if anyone has a few hours to try to edit the FAQ into useful categories, let me know.] Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Count my vote as NO for the same reason that Nigel gave. Count me also as frustrated that OSI continues to silence the arguments against your license categorizations! /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited] Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: > Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then > I'd just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it > alone because you're going to have contention over what belongs in > that list of "popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the > revised landing page. Okay, you're against the change; the rest is off-topic for this thread. -- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD [email protected] BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: > Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd > just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone > because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list of > "popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the revised landing > page. Okay, you're against the change; the rest is off-topic for this thread. -- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD [email protected] BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Thirded. The alphabetical list is the one I use most. I find the category list mostly useless. Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list of "popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the revised landing page. Saying "categorization is off topic" while essentially moving what is most likely to be the most contentious aspect of categorization to the top level license landing page is simply odd. The licenses in that top list will be the tacitly recommended licenses by the OSI and having an outdated list there doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to the newcomer. If you want to update main "Open Source Licenses" landing page that isn't mostly blank with two links then I'd move some of the FAQ answers to the landing page. Discussion regarding what permissive and copyleft means would be helpful for a newcomer. If you really want to present a neutral "Popular/Widely Used/Strong" list then use one developed from actual metrics of what is widely used. The OSRC one is the one I typically refer to. You'd want to remove the non-OSI approved licenses off that list. http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ If you don't like that data set then pick another comprehensive data set to base the widely used list on. - Nigel On 11/11/12 10:22 PM, "Gwyn Murray" wrote: >Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of the alphabetical >list here. > >G. >On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: >>> 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the >>> current http://opensource.org/licenses/) would say (hopefully all >>> changes self-explanatory): >>> >>> " >>> Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source >>> Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used, >>> modified, and redistributed without restriction. >> >> I don't agree with the "in essence" part. >> >>> * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make >>> sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and >>> http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than >>> through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone. >>> (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list >>> altogether, which I personally would be fine with.) >> >> I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW. >> >> - Richard >> >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >___ >License-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of the alphabetical list here. G. On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: >> 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the >> current http://opensource.org/licenses/) would say (hopefully all >> changes self-explanatory): >> >> " >> Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source >> Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used, >> modified, and redistributed without restriction. > > I don't agree with the "in essence" part. > >> * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make >> sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and >> http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than >> through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone. >> (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list >> altogether, which I personally would be fine with.) > > I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW. > > - Richard > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
Happy to take suggestions on the "in essence" part- trying to capture the basics in one sentence. On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: >> 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the >> current http://opensource.org/licenses/) would say (hopefully all >> changes self-explanatory): >> >> " >> Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source >> Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used, >> modified, and redistributed without restriction. > > I don't agree with the "in essence" part. > >> * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make >> sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and >> http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than >> through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone. >> (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list >> altogether, which I personally would be fine with.) > > I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW. > > - Richard > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing page [revisited]
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: > 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the > current http://opensource.org/licenses/) would say (hopefully all > changes self-explanatory): > > " > Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source > Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used, > modified, and redistributed without restriction. I don't agree with the "in essence" part. > * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make > sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and > http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than > through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone. > (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list > altogether, which I personally would be fine with.) I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW. - Richard ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
