Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:29 AM Brian Behlendorf wrote: > However, it also stipulates a 3:1 matching ($3 for every $1 spent, up to > $8M of the total fund) when that software is exclusively GPLv3 licensed. > > I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 > licensed wor

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: >> There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of >> support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pervasive. As it stands >>

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pervasive. As it stands GOSS is continuing to grow, despite a general lack of support and und

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Pamela Chestek dixit: >Is there any way to find out if some of these licenses are even still >in use (or ever were)? No. Not even remotely. bye, //mirabilos -- 15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-) ___ License-discuss mailing list Lic

[License-discuss] popularity, usage, re-review of old licenses [was Re: Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 6/3/2019 11:31 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > If new findings occur with currently-approved licences that are not making it > completely unusable, they ought to be kept, perhaps in a “grandfathered, > problematic, actively derecommended f

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On 6/3/2019 11:31 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote: >>> If new findings occur with currently-approved licences that are not making >>> it completely unusable, they ought to be kept, perhaps in a “grandfathered, >>> problematic, actively derecommended for new works” category. > Per the observation above, m

[License-discuss] May 2019 Summary

In May, the License-Discuss mailing list talked about: - relationship between the License-Review mailing list and the License Committee - evolution of the license review process - comprehensiveness of the approved license list - licenses of licenses - would three licenses be enou

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:55 PM Rick Moen wrote: But this seems surprising, because it's long been a settled > point that OSI's licence-reviewing program has no precedential > tradition, and would not aspire to one -- that this is not a 'stare > decisis' sort of place. > Indeed, it's more like an

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Richard Fontana wrote: > FWIW the Fedora Project has identified OSI-approved licenses it believes do not meet the Free Software Definition (most of these, but I think not all, are based on the FSF's own judgments). FWIW, I am intentionally NOT a member of FSF nor a supporter of their license j

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to i

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to iden

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works >> is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. >> Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are >> no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to Uni

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting McCoy Smith (mccoy.sm...@intel.com): > The problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be > used as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD > compliant licenses must also be approved. Several recent posters to this thread (including now you) have decr

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I don’t think the current OSD bad. It’s common to have interpretation > aids without needing to completely change the rules. Arguably that is, should be, or could be what https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> The greatest threat to FLOSS is not an absence of software, but government > regulation which contradicts the underlying policy goals of FLOSS. > > GOSS is different than other OSS not so much in that there is government > specific policies within copyright/patent and other laws granting exc

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Smith, McCoy dixit: >problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be used >as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD >compliant licenses must also be approved. That’s why we could have a category for them, to make clear that they are *NOT* precedent. (Classi

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >>Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:01 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI >>It will, but I feel strongly

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Russell McOrmond dixit: >On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >>license can be couched as an OSD 5/6 violation, because any >>conceivable problematic feature of a quasi-FLOSS license is going to >>be describable as a discrimination against *someone*. What has In Debian, we hav

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > Also, frankly, hasn't it been the case in practice that the OSD is > broad, vague and in some places oddly-worded enough that it can also > be criticized as facilitating arbitrary decisionmaking? The OSD is a great expression of the prob