On 8/21/2019 7:33 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 purposes? Or,
Johnny A. Solbu dixit:
>He have said in inverviews that he wants code back. He wants the
>changes people use, but says that publishing the changed code on the
>projects own site is enough. He considers that «sendig back» code.
Yet, this is not required by the actual licence. (Most OSS projects
wo
On Thursday 22 August 2019 20:55, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Some Free Software has a requirement to pass the modifications along to the
> recipient if you distribute the work, but never “back”. This is crucial, see
> above
That was my point. Heh, :-)
Reading my post again I se I should have put
Hi Lukas,
Thanks for your reply. Based on your response, as well as the other
responses here, it seems like the structure of this clause is
non-problematic.
However:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:14 PM Lukas Atkinson
wrote:
> However, that 90 day window is awfully long... In the context of a sourc
Such a clause is a good idea for copyleft licenses. Yay for license
innovation! I don't think it interacts a lot with the OSD or a concept of
software freedom, since it at most *delays* compliance with certain license
provisions under a limited set of circumstances.
However, that 90 day window is
On 8/22/2019 2:22 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss
> wrote:
>> Pam,
>>
>> I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically
>> rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived.
> I agree, even though a
Johnny A. Solbu dixit:
>On Thursday 22 August 2019 06:17, Howard Chu wrote:
>> Two of these which often appear necessary are the Chinese Dissident
>> test (requirement to publish will endanger them as it makes identi‐
>> fication possible)
>
>I don't believe this test is conclusive. Sending modifi
Brendan,
I understand that much effective prosecution of classical "gangsters" was
under tax-code violations rather than more severe criminal law, since
prospective witnesses were often murdered. So, although this is not to say
I'm "pro-gangster", I get your point. I am trying to balance the terms
Van,
I don't necessarily object to your disclosure provision. I am commenting on
Debian's reasons for not liking the AGPL.
Thanks
Bruce
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:51 AM VanL wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for sharing your perspective, and I can sympathize with your desire
> to get secu
Bruce,
The dissident test is relevant even to people who do not currently face
summary execution. Think of any person or organization on this side of the
law that may be nuisance to state actors. Journalist, NGOs, public
intellectuals. These people exist within institutions, like universities
and
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss
wrote:
>
> Pam,
>
> I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically
> rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived.
I agree, even though attempting to gather that information would be
much mor
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>As a software author, and in order to best support my community, I should
>see security information about my own software as soon as possible. Thus,
[…]
>So, I am not so inclined to value the Insurgent test, or whatever it's
>called. It's fantastical in nat
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for sharing your perspective, and I can sympathize with your desire
to get security-related information as quickly as possible. But I don't
really understand your comments about the "Insurgent test" or the other
items you mentioned. I didn't use that term, so I am not sure what yo
As a software author, and in order to best support my community, I should
see security information about my own software as soon as possible. Thus,
it has always been disquieting that Red Hat has an Enterprise product, the
main differentiating feature of which is that they have a customer-only
wall
Pam,
I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically
rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived.
For example, the BitMover license, which required that users connect to a
logging server operated by BitMover Inc. to log their usage, was rejected.
I'm not sa
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:35 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> It might address the topic, but I have a really hard time wrapping
> my head around all the restrictions and terms used.
>
You mention that it must be necessary for people to get the patch. That is
this part:
> You may delay providing
VanL dixit:
>What would everyone here think of the following exception to the CAL's
>requirement to provide source code:
It might address the topic, but I have a really hard time wrapping
my head around all the restrictions and terms used.
I’d like to argue in favour of a general grace period be
FWIW, I think this is well structured and would address this concern
adequately.
As always, this is my personal opinion and not that of my employer or
associated communities.
Tom
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:46 AM VanL wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The following caught my eye:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 20
Hello all,
The following caught my eye:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:09 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Incidentally works covered by the AGPL are being removed from a
> lot of institutions now due to the inability to deploy embargoed
> security fixes. This isn’t just a licence issue, but the ability
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 00:18 Howard Chu wrote:
> I don't believe this test is conclusive. Sending modifications back to the
> code's original author doesn't immediately publish them.
"Original author" is frought. We've seen a number of licenses that
privilege this hypothetical person. None of th
On Thursday 22 August 2019 06:17, Howard Chu wrote:
> The requirement to send modifications back doesn't prevent anyone from using
> the code. You
> could call it best-effort, or at earliest opportunity.
If you only modify and keep the modifications in-house (in your own systems,
whether it's ho
21 matches
Mail list logo
