Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote:
> ... this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion.
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft".
I believe that Patrice-Emmanuel is correct for U.S. copyright law also. Unlike
Bruce, I don't believe tha
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>But it also is equally good for open source software because the
No, it would be really bad for OSS in general, because…
>copyleft effect would have greater reach
… that would imbalance the scales away from copycentre/Ⓕ copyfree
and towards copyleft, which per se is the m
Improved enforcement of Open Source licenses is no benefit if it locks us
out of participation in the rest of the world and makes Open Source an
island. Consider that APIs also include interfaces made available to web
browsers, etc.
> How is it different from the copyleft in the GPL?
GPL does not
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
> The successful application of copyright to APIs would be a disaster
> for Open Source software, in that we would no longer be able to create
> Open versions of existing APIs or languages.
But it also is equally good for open source soft
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:59 PM Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via
License-discuss wrote:
> this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion.
>
I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft". It's being used to
represent copyleft with the addition of various things that copyle
Is this a doctrine, or explicit law?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 13:59 Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> As far the European law could be applicable, I just confirm that, for the
> purpose of interoperability between several components and whe
As far the European law could be applicable, I just confirm that, for the
purpose of interoperability between several components and when you are the
legitimate owner or the legitimate licensee of these components, there is a
copyright exception regarding their APIs. APIs escape to copyright ,
mean
Thank you so much, Lukas.
That's my main question in this mailing list.
I'm not sure if I'll be using this license in the future in some
software. I'm evaluating advantages and disvantages.
Thanks to all people by the comments.
Regards.
Lukas Atkinson writes:
> [1:multipart/alternative Hid
This is connected with why I gave up on Open Hardware licenses. Pretty much
every one of them attempts to assert copyright rights upon things that can
not reliably be copyrighted under current US law. In this case to assert it
over the production of hardware devices implementing a schematic design
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee
> having an obligation. Is it a principle of open source software that one
> should be able to
Christine Hall dixit:
> Open source licenses (again, according to my understanding -- folks with
> many years experience at OSI should correct me if I'm wrong) should
> apply only to the software being licensed, and the data collected by or
> stored within a software application is clearly not par
On 6/29/19 9:08 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>>
>> 2._At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior_.
>> The trigger for meeting license obligations can differ across
>> licenses. The most common, almost univer
I do not think the question of whether API copyright exists is that
relevant for review. Clearly, it is not in the interest of the open source
community for such a right to exist, as Bruce points out. But where such a
right does exist it ought to be fine for an open source license to exercise
that
If my understanding of this issue is correct, then it seems pretty clear
cut that this is a restriction that can't be part of an open source license.
Open source licenses (again, according to my understanding -- folks with
many years experience at OSI should correct me if I'm wrong) should
a
>On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>>
>> /Until now, the principle of copyleft has only been applied to
>> literal code, not APIs. TheB licenseB submitterb s proposal is for a
>> copyleft effect that would apply to new implementations of the API
>> even w
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>
>
> 3._A license that requires data portability_.
> Section 2.3(b) obliges the user of a software to “provide to any
> third party with which you have an enforceable legal agreement, a
> no-charge copy … of the Use
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>
> 2._At what point the licensor can oblige licensee behavior_.
> The trigger for meeting license obligations can differ across
> licenses. The most common, almost universal trigger, is
> distribution of software. T
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>
> /Until now, the principle of copyleft has only been applied to
> literal code, not APIs. The license submitter’s proposal is for a
> copyleft effect that would apply to new implementations of the API
> even when the u
I'm taking the liberty of breaking it into four threads for the four
topics, to make it easier (I hope) to keep the comments on each topic
together.
Pam
On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
> I have brought this discussion to license-discuss, as requested by Pam.
> /
> /
19 matches
Mail list logo
