On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:44 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is
> primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions placed
> upon
> source code (and after that about minimizing restrictions placed on
> users);
> all
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:50 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if it can be considered a good policy argument, but my point
> of
> view is that it's - at the very least - ethically questionable to take
> source
> code that the author clearly intended to be libre, improve upon it, and
> th
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:50 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> It makes it a lot easier to state, and eventually enforce,
> performance-based terms (or Larry's "deployment" based terms), because you
> don't have to differentiate when something is p
It makes it a lot easier to state, and eventually enforce,
performance-based terms (or Larry's "deployment" based terms), because you
don't have to differentiate when something is performance or deployment vs.
when it is private modification.
I've never seen protection of private modification as e
On Friday, 9 August 2019 02:19:30 CEST Brendan Hickey wrote:
> Branching off from the Libre Source discussion. Not necessarily in reply to
> Russell, but this seems like a good jumping off point.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:09 PM Russell McOrmond
>
> wrote:
> > I will register my standard objec
Disregarding the specifics of any particular license:
In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is
primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions placed upon
source code (and after that about minimizing restrictions placed on users);
allowing someo
Branching off from the Libre Source discussion. Not necessarily in reply to
Russell, but this seems like a good jumping off point.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:09 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
> I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt
> to restrict private modification
I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt
to restrict private modification. Many countries are starting to recognise
the harm of claiming restrictions on private copying under copyright, so
this reads as an attempt to circumvent in contract law a limitation or
excep
Subject: Cryptographic Autonomy License Beta 2
Thanks again to the license-review committee for the response to Beta 1. I
have reworked the CAL to remove the reasons for rejection and to address
some of the concerns that led into the “further discussion” items. I have
also privately discussed thes
I see. To me those opinions are interesting in and of themselves (especially
if they're conflicting), but I take both of your points.
I'll refrain from posting further updates on the LSL itself for a while and
rethink my approach.
Moritz
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 22:06:39 CEST Pamela Chestek w
Thank you very much for the explanation.
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:55:16 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I agree with McCoy. "Grants" and "obligations" aren't necessarily
> separate concepts. I can say "I grant you a license with a scope of XYZ"
> or I can say "I grant you a license" and under "o
Thank you for clarifying your position and suggesting a course of action,
I'll take both into consideration going forward.
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:57:05 CEST Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: License-discuss
> >>[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 11:44 Ofer wrote:
> Let me clarify, I don't determine that, you do :-)
> You use the code, you "Make sure your use of the software complies with
> your own ethical standards", and you decide on the support $ amount.
>
You appear to have confused readme.txt and license.txt .
On 8/8/2019 3:57 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM
>>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lice
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner
>>Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source Licen
I agree with McCoy. "Grants" and "obligations" aren't necessarily
separate concepts. I can say "I grant you a license with a scope of XYZ"
or I can say "I grant you a license" and under "obligations" say "You
can't use it outside the scope of XYZ." These have the same result but
are stated differen
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 19:47:34 CEST Smith, McCoy wrote:
> This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code.
If you mean it doesn't require the person initially creating the software and
putting it under this license, then yes, you're right that it doesn't. I am
obviously not a l
This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code.
The patent grants are also inconsistent as between the preamble and the grant
itself.
You really should be working with a legal person on this if you're serious
about it; there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language inconsist
Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from
Contribution Public License (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL).
I've also slightly reordered the license text for (what I think makes for)
easier reading.
Attached in plaintext is the new draft.
Thanks for your time,
Moritz
On Saturday, 3 August 20
>
> Let me clarify, I don't determine that [ my company was ethical enough
> or pledged enough support for us to continue to use your code], you do
> :-)
>
You use the code, you "Make sure your use of the software complies with
> your own ethical standards", and you decide on the support $ amount.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 17:36, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> >I'd love to know what you think of the whole thing.
>
> tl;dr: It's difficult to control other people's actions. Instead, seek
> acceptable outcome for yourself, and inspire goodness in ot
>I'd love to know what you think of the whole thing.
tl;dr: It's difficult to control other people's actions. Instead, seek
acceptable outcome for yourself, and inspire goodness in others.
You explain "I'd like to open source my company's code, but, I'm worried my
code will be misused." which is
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 09:31 Ofer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm a developer, now turned startup founder, so not much legal background
> except my own curiosity.
>
> I'd like to open source my company's code, but, I'm worried my code will
> be misused.
>
It sounds like you don't want to open source y
Hi everyone,
I'm a developer, now turned startup founder, so not much legal background
except my own curiosity.
I'd like to open source my company's code, but, I'm worried my code will be
misused.
The way I see it, code can bring value to a company.
By open sourcing the code, I can help share thi
24 matches
Mail list logo
