> On May 22, 2019, at 11:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> And so OSI should educate you that patents are sometimes very important, and
> that the BSD license is currently not very useful in the open source
> environment. It is risky!
Has this actually been tested and/or demonstrated yet anyw
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
> > Today, I declare that a codebase is 2-clause BSD licensed.
>
> As you have the obvious right to do.
>
> But as someone recently reminded me, and I remind this list, the OSI charter
> includes the obligation to "educate the public about open sour
Rick Moen wrote:
> Today, I declare that a codebase is 2-clause BSD licensed.
As you have the obvious right to do.
But as someone recently reminded me, and I remind this list, the OSI charter
includes the obligation to "educate the public about open source." And so
OSI should educate you
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:19 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> A limiting example can illustrate why: Today, I declare that a codebase
> is 2-clause BSD licensed. I post tarballs with compiled binaries.
> [...]
>
> Is that software covered by an open source licence? Absolutely. Is the
> software open s
Since I've only been participating on this list since about June of last
year, after a vacation of many years, I am surprised that nobody is calling
us to return to the good old days of the early 2018 license-discuss mailing
list. No, it's 2012, when I was participating, it seems. I pulled the June
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
[revisiting CC0:]
> And me, and others... This was the quickly growing consensus.
Including me, emphatically. For whatever that's worth.
I note with appreciation Richard Fontana reminding us of the then-recent
context of the MXM/MPEG-LA matter.
On 5/22/19, 10:06 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
wrote:
>What concerned me, and I remember Carlo noting this as well, was the
>possibility that OSI, or l-r, would treat similar licenses differently
>based on varying sentimental attitudes toward the licens
I brought it up in the context of a description of the past made by Richard.
There is also an active thread titled "history of l-r/org relationship" in
which you are a participant.
The lack of CC0 on the list of OSI approved licenses is on topic for both
threads don't you think? 2012 was proba
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:43 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> Let's clarify the history on CC0.
>
>
>
> Objection to CC0 was primarily you and Bruce which made it DOA regardless of
> the opinions of the rest of the list. There was no "quickly growing
> consensus" when they pulled the plug.
>
And
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:15 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> Let's clarify the history on CC0.
>
>
>
> Objection to CC0 was primarily you and Bruce which made it DOA regardless of
> the opinions of the rest of the list. There was no "quickly growing
> consensus" when they pulled the plug.
You're
I believe the underlying problem is that the OSI as a community has been
largely ineffective at reconciling patent right concerns with respect to the
OSD.
On the one side, you have people that seem to think of patents as this
extrinsic issue, that a license (only) pertains to copyright concern
Let's clarify the history on CC0.
Objection to CC0 was primarily you and Bruce which made it DOA regardless of
the opinions of the rest of the list. There was no "quickly growing consensus"
when they pulled the plug.
Many, if not the majority, of folks on L-R thought this should have been
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:43 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:30 AM Stephen Paul Weber
> wrote:
> >
> > > Saying "OSI's list isn't very useful in contracts or scanners" does
> > carry an implicit question that I've probably also said explicitly on
> > occasion: if people d
13 matches
Mail list logo
