On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:02 PM VanL wrote:
>
>
> I think it gets back to the core purpose of the OSI: To be a steward for the
> OSD and to certify licenses as compliant with the OSD. There are many other
> good things the OSI *can* do, but that is the one thing it *must* do.
>
> So how does tha
(continuing the discussion of tooling in a new thread)
If L-R and L-D actually would like to have new, thoughtful input from
> others on topics that haven't been beaten to death, either a better
> front-end to the mailing list should be used or as Mr. Hillburn mentioned a
> new medium altogether (
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> I really don’t want to relitigate this
>
Yeah. Before anyone misunderstands, I am not shouting at Nigel. I AM NOT
SHOUTING :-)
a) the terms that were deemed questionable existed in the already approved
> 1.3 and
>
The problem here is tha
I really don’t want to relitigate this but my recollection was that
a) the terms that were deemed questionable existed in the already approved 1.3
and
b) a significant part of the discussion wasn’t regarding whether it met the OSD
but whether the government had need to retain those terms to fol
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM VanL wrote:
> I agree with you on this one. However, the phrasing of this particular
> element was important to my client. I did try to make sure that the
> broader language (as you suggest) was also present - see 2.3(a) and (b).
>
Could you ask your client to di
We are seeking public comments for the next version of OpenChain Specification.
For those new to the OpenChain Specification - The OpenChain project developed
a specification that defines a core set of requirements that a high quality
Open Source Compliance program is expected to satisfy. Alth
I would Ask the same question as well. I attempted to reply to a
conversation earlier with no results.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Patrick Schleizer
wrote:
> A message of mine didn't went through to license-review. No
> notification. I guess it hit the spam filter or something. To ask about
First I apologize for replying to multiple emails in this thread in one
email:
> The OSI board votes, and we receive no tally naming directors and their
> votes yay or nay, nor their rationale for voting as they did. This makes it
> difficult for us to determine how we should vote for OSI directo
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:05 AM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need
> for legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer
> in a specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to
> meet the r
I think it gets back to the core purpose of the OSI: To be a steward for
the OSD and to certify licenses as compliant with the OSD. There are many
other good things the OSI *can* do, but that is the one thing it *must* do.
So how does that get back to L-D and L-R? Well, the OSI board is not
compos
See the few references I added in response to your first message. I believe
the ultimate source n the US is the 1976 act + CONTU recommendations that
were enacted into law, but I would have to double check. Note that one of
the references is a WIPO publication, referring to international law.
Than
Hello Bruce,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:17 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> *As reigning honcho of the Open Source Initiative, I have come to oppress
> your license :-)*
>
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
>
> *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public
> performance right f
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for the commentary!
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:47 PM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
>
> *About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:*
>
> It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third
> parties. This is also novel, isn't it? Potential OSD issues come to mind
Nigel,
I don't have a problem with improving the process. We have a number of
proposals so far:
1. Use a communication system other than email. The main advantage seems to
be better tracking of a discussion. They also have disadvantages. I would
at least replace the mailing list archiver software
While there were problems with NOSA 2.0 it was an improvement on NOSA 1.3.
But as I said, that ship has sailed and perception is perception.
You can take the observation I provided that the concerns of unfairness are not
without merit in intended spirit of hoping the process gets better as oppos
Oops - sorry about the incorrect Latin.
Nigel, if lawyers all agreed there would be no need for courts. OSI had
it's own counsel arguing against elements of NOSA, and there were other
such counsel on the list. While I have only been participating for a year,
I saw significant problems in the licen
Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need for
legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer in a
specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to meet the
required regulations for a governmental agency that laypersons
I will point out that the most “famous” example wasn’t CC0 but NOSA 2.0 where
one single individual, representing the OSI in an offical capacity, withheld
any voting on the license for three years despite it being a replacement for a
prior version and hence no proliferation issue, addressed some
18 matches
Mail list logo
