Nick Weinstock wrote:
> If a license says "You have a license to use my Trademark on the condition
that you pay me $XYX" is the money consideration or a condition of the
license? What if it says "You will have a license to use my Trademark as
long as you continue to pay me $XYZ per month," does th
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com):
>
> > The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source"
> > that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom
> > is mostly philosophica
We agree regarding the first two licenses, I'll cut those out for readability.
Regarding BSD, it seems like you're saying that you think it would (or should)
not be accepted by OSI if it were newly proposed today. So would it be fair to
say that taking up the new OSD would include some caveat t
Nick Weinstock wrote:
> To your question below, I can cite two examples of RichardÂ’s concern:
And you also cited two examples of your own concern about
unapproved/un-approvable licenses. Thanks! I appreciate that.
* Ms-LPL: True. That license is not open source because it fails OSD
#
Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com):
> The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source"
> that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom
> is mostly philosophical. But the possibility of licenses no longer
> being "Open
This crossed in the ether with my response to Richard.
To your question below, I can cite two examples of Richard's concern:
* Ms-LPL is generally viewed as not "Open Source" because it has a platform
limitation. It's not listed in SPDX or on OSI. It would satisfy this
definition.
* Code Pro
Larry,
As far as I am aware, where the previous OSI board has worst "screwed up"
has been in accepting crayon licenses that can be harmful to the community
(my favorite is the SIL Open Font license, which I contend allows third
parties to place a font in the public domain). The OSD would not, on i
I agree.
On the flip side, I would also say that there are be some licenses widely
understood to be "Open Source" that would seem to fail a highly literalist
reading of the OSD.
The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" that the
community does not view as providi
Richard Fontana wrote:
> I can easily come up with hypothetical licenses that would seem not to
fail a highly literalist reading of the OSD, but which historically would
never have been *treated* as conforming to the OSD, because of an obvious
failure of the license to provide software freedom as
On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 03:42:08PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
> (1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"?
> (2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would
> apply" (either explicitly or implicitly), does the board plan to talk with
> FSF about mergin
10 matches
Mail list logo
