Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Quoting VanL (van.lindb...@gmail.com): > Open source only reflects permission from the licensor (or in some cases, > the direct distributor) to exercise otherwise-exclusive IP rights. The > whole "no warranties" part of open source licensing is precisely to deal > with the unknowability of potenti

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:24 PM VanL wrote: > It is possible that under certain licenses (e.g. GPLv2) that the distributor > might need to stop distributing, or identify particular jurisdictions in > which it can be distributed, but that doesn't change its open source status. As to the latter

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote: > > In reviewing the OSD, some sections explicitly reference the license, such as > section 3, while others explicitly reference the program, such as section 2. > It's interesting to note that section 7, the one that Richard

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Bruce Perens wrote: > Larry, what about companies that separate their patent-holding entity from > their operational entity, the entity that touches Open Source, and the entity > that brings lawsuits? I do know for a fact that Qualcomm operates a separate > entity for their Open Source involvem

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:36 PM Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > > > The deep [patent] threat comes from third parties, which is a risk > > that neither ther the licensor nor the licensee can reasonably > > mitigate. > > [snip] > I _would_ join everyone in calling that

Re: [License-discuss] moderator information outdated

Fixed, thanks. Pam Pamela Chestek License Review Committee Chair Open Source Initiative On 5/20/2019 3:33 PM, Brendan Hickey wrote: > Bumping this thread because I never saw a reply. > Is there a moderator? > > Brendan > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 18:54 Andrew DeMarsh

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Larry, what about companies that separate their patent-holding entity from their operational entity, the entity that touches Open Source, and the entity that brings lawsuits? I do know for a fact that Qualcomm operates a separate entity for their Open Source involvement. Thanks Bruce On

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > The deep [patent] threat comes from third parties, which is a risk > that neither ther the licensor nor the licensee can reasonably > mitigate. Sure. > Okay, but if we accept that patent infringement makes a piece of > software not open source, we are in th

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote: > . If a program has functionality covered by a patent owned by a completely > unrelated 3rd party, the program's license doesn't give all the Patent rights > a user needs. At best, you could claim that the program's license gives all > the Patent rights

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Agreed. I've been saying for a while (since I started participating on this board) that there needs to be clear recognition of the difference between the LICENSE and the PROGRAM, and make sure we're talking about the right thing. Copyright ownership is more straightforward: Only one person is t

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:27 PM >>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >> >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>Subject: Re: [License-discu

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:48 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > - According to many imprecise metrics, 99% of all open source software > in the world is covered by a list of about 20 licenses > (https://web.archive.org/web/20190115063327/https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses) > - OSI li

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:14 AM Rick Moen wrote: Well, yes, indeed. That's the queasy-making aspect: IMO, it means that > you might reasonably think today that codebase X is legitimately open > source in your legal jurisdiction, but tomorrow someone pulls out a > submarine patent (in your juris

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > Because OSD #2 specifically forbids it: software whose source is not > available not Open Source by definition. Sure, but... distinguo: The _licence_ can be reasonable declared to be open source. The software (at that point, to all appearances) is not. Th