[In the interests of brevity, have been aggressive in cutting and
rearranging both of our quoted emails.]
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:32 AM Richard Fontana <
richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>
> It would be helpful if you could point more specifically to when and
> how the discussion turned
Bruce Perens writes:
> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear
> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
> discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or
> uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev ma
Both Red Hat and Debian treat the terms of the distribution the same as
what they ask for in the software. When I last checked, Red Hat was using
the GPL Version 2 as a compilation license. Both wanted commercial
derivatives (Red Hat for their own use). So, this sort of restriction was
not allowabl
Tom Callaway dixit:
>On 10/26/2018 11:32 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> So if it's not as free everywhere as it would be in Debian,
>> it's not free enough for Debian.
>
>It has never happened that I know of, but if there were a copyright
>license which was somehow okay only in Fedora (but not for an
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 6:07 AM John Cowan wrote:
> Well, that pretty much reflects the law: U.S. government employee work
> product *is* in the public domain in the U.S., and *isn't* in the public
> domain in other countries unless the foreign law makes it so.
>
I want to see the United States
OK. I will try to generate a two-sentence clause that preserves the
customer's specific fears in their selected wording while being broader and
not a use restriction, and submit it for your approval.
Thanks
Bruce
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:15 AM VanL wrote:
> This is best thought of as
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:36 PM VanL wrote:
> 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. T
This is best thought of as an extended anti-Tivoization clause. It concerns
a particular type of attack on user freedom that can arise in the context
of distributed systems that use cryptographic primitives as functional and
addressing elements. It is related to, but broader than, the concept of
ca
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
No, I don't believe this is the problem. The problem is that the terms do
> pernicious things like attempt to limit the public domain to national
> boundaries with contractual terms. It's a terrible precedent for OSI to
> approve.
>
Well, that
