Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 11:47 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > Maybe it would be better for OSI to have the expectation that license > review will only take place some months or years after a license is > already in practical use. Users of new licenses could be expected to > make clear that the licenses

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

It depends on what role the OSI is supposed to take. Is the OSI just the FSF, but with different branding? Is the OSI just the recognizer and rubber-stamper of existing practice? No, the OSI is something different - it is a certifier. There is a definition of "open source" and the OSI maintains it

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

(Moved to license-discuss) On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:53 AM Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:38 AM Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> >> It matters whether proprietary relicensing is the primary use case for >> at least a couple of reasons. First, there is the long general history >> o

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

(Moved to license-discuss) On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:06 PM VanL wrote: > Is one takeaway here that people should start by ignoring the OSI process > and just start using the license? Maybe. Not ignoring, but postponing. The handful or so of the first licenses recognized by the OSI as 'open so

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] AGPL timeline

Moving to license-discuss. Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/4/20 4:21 PM, Keith Zubot-Gephart wrote: On Sat Jan 4 03:18:16 UTC 2020 VanL wrote: You are right, copyleft-next is engaging in a public drafting process, and has not submitted the license to any authority.

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))

Moving this thread to license-discuss. The discussion on license-review should be about the merits of the license. A discussion of the OSI license review process itself should be on license discuss. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/3/20 11:49 PM, Bradle

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

My apologies for not remembering how to unsubscribe would you kindly unsubscribe me from this list? thankyou, zak ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

To address any doubt anyone may have, no decision is pre-determined, nor is the decision made unilaterally by OSI as an organization without respect for the contributions made by the community on L-R and elsewhere. I think that's apparent from the vigorous discussion that is still ongoing, incl

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

* Lawrence Rosen: > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/oracle-copied-amazons-api-was-th > at-copyright-infringement/ There is actually something that looks like a machine-readable interface description in the source code published by Amazon under the Apache license: