On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:37 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> In addition, I think there's a principle here. Extension of copyright is
> bad for Open Source, even if it helps us enforce our licenses more
> effectively. It will always work against us to a greater extent that it can
> be put to work for us
FYI, I am on record as agreeing with you on this point - I wrote about it
in my book in the context of feeling that some GPL advocates and the GPL
FAQ stretched the bounds of copyright too far - thus creating a negative
policy outcome even while trying to do something good for the GPL.
However, in
Hi Bruce,
I welcome feedback and criticism. No need to apologize. Heaven knows, I
have given criticism and feedback in the past, and I hope it was taken as
constructive. I think that approaching this whole process with some
humility is definitely warranted.
Let me address a couple of your points.
Hi McCoy,
I very much hope that the Supreme Court grants cert in Oracle v. Google and
reverses - in fact I am writing an amicus to that effect right now. But
given where we are and the odds that the Supreme Court take *any*
particular case, I am right now planning that it is at least somewhat
like
Hello Stephen,
Close. The effect would be AGPL-ish by default, but have an LGPL/classpath
type clause that people could invoke simply by adding "with the Combined
Works Exception" to the end of the license string.
Thanks,
Van
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:41 AM Stephen Michael Kellat via License-d
I think it's important to make a point about the extension of copyright. In
the case of Open Hardware, licenses are crafted which intend to copyright
not only schematics (which are functional things and thus not
copyrightable) but the *implementations of hardware from those schematics.*
This is an
Given where we currently are in the Google/Oracle case, I’m curious how you
define API (or if you define it at all).
Would it require copylefting code that implements an API that is
non-copyrightable, or implements an API when such implementation would be fair
use?
Anyway, I’ll be at CopyleftCon
Van,
With all respect and understanding of the motivations of the group behind
this, I have a really big problem with this part:
Unlike other current open source licenses, the Autonomous Agent License
will require software that implements a compatible API or publicly performs
the API to also be o
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:16:04AM -0600, VanL wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source
> license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth
> internally for a little while and we will shortly be putting out a draft
> for publi
Hello all,
I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source
license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth
internally for a little while and we will shortly be putting out a draft
for public comment. After the public comment period, we will be submitting
10 matches
Mail list logo
