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

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Howard Chu dixit: > >> A standard license clause of this form would also have ended the >> debate over disclosure of zero-day vulnerabilities and other such >> nonsense that plagues today's software world. I.e., you would have a >> clear obligation to inform the software a

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

Russell, what you said is not true in the United States. I dare not speak to Canadian law. Russell wrote: * What is the purpose of the copying or modification of the work. If the modifying is for making software compatible with other software, that is already an enumerated exception in Ca

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:39 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about > copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private > party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, > for her own private

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

> > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in > > and protection of culture and science in article 27 seem

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

Howard Chu dixit: >A standard license clause of this form would also have ended the >debate over disclosure of zero-day vulnerabilities and other such >nonsense that plagues today's software world. I.e., you would have a >clear obligation to inform the software authors of any flaws you >discover i

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

Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, for her own private purposes? Or, in your view, is at least a minimal license re

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

On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 19:59:03 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > > to > > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > > much? >

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

On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 22:07:28 CEST Michael Downey wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, at 12:22, Howard Chu wrote: > > Article 27: > > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life > > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific > > advancem

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:16 PM Howard Chu > wrote: > > Fwiw, most of the free software I released in the 1980s, before GPL > existed, had the clause > "You are free to use this software but any modifications/corrections/bug > fixes

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:16 PM Howard Chu wrote: > Fwiw, most of the free software I released in the 1980s, before GPL > existed, had the clause > "You are free to use this software but any modifications/corrections/bug > fixes you make must > be sent back to me so they may be included in future

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:39 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: > > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. Th

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am offended by any alleged legitimacy granted to the exclusive rights >> of softwa

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 15:22 Howard Chu wrote: > Russell McOrmond wrote: > When you benefit from Free software, you have an obligation to contribute > back, either through contributing > monetary support, or through labor - writing/updating documentation, > submitting bug reports, or even submitti

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

Hi all, On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, at 12:22, Howard Chu wrote: > Article 27: > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific > advancement and its benefits. > (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the

Re: [License-discuss] Fact-gathering on OSI-approved licenses

Interesting data gathering... Perhaps this is something the guys at https://tldrlegal.com could help fill out or incorporate into their site? Seems entirely relevant to what they’re trying to do too. Cheers! Sean > On Aug 19, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Pamela Chestek > wrot

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:23 PM Bruce Perens > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu > wrote: > > I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I > releas

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

> You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in and > protection of culture and science in article 27 seems prett

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:23 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu wrote: > >> I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I >> released for free, but >> would deny anyone else the benefit of improvements they make (privately >> or not)

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu wrote: > I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I > released for free, but > would deny anyone else the benefit of improvements they make (privately or > not) to my code. Ignoring Howard's return umbrage, isn't this a vali

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > to > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > much? > Why your fixation on "compensa

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > > I am offended by any alleged legitimacy granted to the exclusive rights of > software authors being allowed to regulate private activities. > Try to maintain a collegial tone. You could as well say that you feel very strongly about the

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > to > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > much? > Why your fixation on "compensation"? > I am offended by any alleged legiti

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

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 04:33:25 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > > > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not > > > > to > > > > > write