Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

On 09/08/2019 15:57, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: Depending on what you mean "dual," Dual in the context of open source software generally means that you licence it under two alternative sets of terms and the licensee can chose which of those sets of terms to honour. Typically they

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

Lothar sent me an interesting paper yesterday: Nobody Owns Data https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3123957 On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:22 PM Diane Peters wrote: > Perhaps useful as a point of reference: CC 4.0 ND >

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

Perhaps useful as a point of reference: CC 4.0 ND licenses allow private modifications. This feature is included to support text and data mining activities and similar. As long as what i

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Brendan Hickey >>Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 5:20 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] Private modification >>What are some good policy arguments in favor of restr

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

On Friday, 9 August 2019 15:42:16 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone can help explain to me what they see as the > difference between the forced public disclosure of private modifications of > software, and registration of mere usage, private modification, or public > discloseof

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

I believe this group is about discussing licenses, and not giving legal advice about what you can or should do. In that context: "Can I release the software under a dual license: AGPL and my modified Apache?" yes, you can do whatever you please with your code. However the world will recognize that

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

Related question - Can I release the software under a dual license: AGPL and my modified Apache? Assuming my modified Apache is not open source by OSI, would the code still be open source by OSI because it's also licensed under AGPL? If so, then we end up with either: * Disclose any modifications

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

To Ofer's new suggestion making registration a condition: no. That does not work, either by the letter or, or the spirit of, open source. I'd *love* to know who uses our code. If we run a meetup for an open source project we run, we ask people on our message boards to speak (and they tell us they

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

It On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Johnny A. Solbu wrote: > Then you are effectively demanding registration. > That is still not allowed in Free and Open Source software, meaning, that > makes it Not Free and Open Source. > I belive the Free Software Foundation would even call it proprietary. > >

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:28 PM Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It would be fun to watch Larry and Van enforcing in tandem their > provisions meant to undo the statutory limitations (17 USC 117) using > Jacobsen v. Katzer silliness with "failed conditions" somehow causing scope > violations resulting

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > 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

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

On Friday 09 August 2019 09:29, Ofer wrote: > What if I drop the ethics part and drop the 1$ support minimum? > The license will only require that users of the code will add themselves to > a file in the repo with the following fields: > * Company/individual name > * Description of how the soft

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:02:27 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > 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

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

Thanks for the feedback everyone. What if I drop the ethics part and drop the 1$ support minimum? The license will only require that users of the code will add themselves to a file in the repo with the following fields: * Company/individual name * Description of how the software is used * Su