Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On 2/28/20 8:36 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Feel free, however, to translate between people of different styles > of communication. Oh, please. Prolific profanity and personal attacks are not a "style of communication", they're just childish behavior. And, more importantly, violations of the Co

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

On 2/28/20 8:15 AM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: > 1. When I use open source code in my solution, I still feel that my > solution is mine (even though others wrote some of it). > 2. When my code is used by others, I don't feel less attached to my > code. It still feels mine. > 3

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

There are, as one might expect, multiple aspects of this idea. Is it legally enforceable? Not even lawyers can answer that question because it depends (as Larry Rosen once said) on which side of the bed the judge has gotten up on. Probably a better question is whether you intend the new terms

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

NOSA 3.0 was a NASA effort to address the complaints of 2.0. It wasn’t submitted, just worked on. I’m sorry about causing confusion. Thanks, Cem Karan —- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authorit

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

The argument that the NASA lawyer wasn’t participating is particularly annoying since he WAS participating until Fontana decided to sit on the license for years AFTER the prior list moderator had sent a recommendation from the list for the board to approve. The “discussion” scattered across YEA

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>From: Nigel T >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 2:20 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Cc: mc...@lexpan.law; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage >>governments from bespoke licenses? >>The argume

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

I'm exploring the psychological relationship between the author of a work, and the work. i.e. parsing the phrase "my open source code" and would like your thoughts. Assume I need an algorithm, say the quadratic formula. Option A

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

Hi Nicholas, On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, at 14:07, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote: > As an analogy, think about an artist during the Renaissance. Thanks for your analogy. Your text as well as Gil's framing question about "how our creation is used" reminded me of a conversation I had with an art

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>-Original Message- >>From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:39 PM >>To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage >>governments from bespoke licenses?

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:19 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses? >>There are many

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

As an analogy, think about an artist during the Renaissance. Let's say he paints a work of art simply because he was inspired. Nobody tells him what to paint. He owns the painting, and he can do whatever he wants with it. He has freedom and control over the work. But he also takes the risk.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

On 2/28/2020 3:31 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss wrote: > My memory on this is **very** fuzzy, and the details were explained in > somewhat technical legal jargon, so if I get this wrong, please forgive me. > There was some kind of issue involving giving what co

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

> >>> [There also were some concerns about non-reciprocity, IIRC, to which the > >>> response was the same as above] > > >>THAT would be a serious concern! I don't recall there being such a > >>problem, can you find it in the archives? If it does exist, then it > needs to be addressed. > > He

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

> >>The US Government has a lot of money, and with money can come lawsuits. > >>These are not only expensive to fight, they can also have a > chilling effect on both the use of, and publication of, Open Source software > by the US Government. I personally want to avoid that kind of > problem.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

On 2/28/2020 2:05 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss wrote: > I don't know the full reasoning behind why they couldn't participate on the > list, but I do know that they were more open to talking with lawyers > directly, off list. Is that an option for you? Unfortunat

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>-Original Message- >>From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:06 AM >>To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage >>governments from bespoke licenses?

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss On >>Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:26 AM >>To: Thorsten Glaser ; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >>via License-discuss >>Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

A mid-conversation thank you to those who have contributed so far. Nicholas, you are bringing excellent clarifications, especially around the parameters of copyright. Others shared really nice ideas about they see sharing. But I also run into people who relate to code differently, and that's the cu

[License-discuss] Early uses of the term open source (was: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives)

I belatedly noticed this subthread from a few days back, which happily helps angle back to software licensing and OSI: Quoting Eric S. Raymond (e...@thyrsus.com): > No, it wasn't. Believe me, I did a *very* through audit on existing > usage at the time I proposed the term for general use in 1998

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

On Friday, February 28, 2020 12:37 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit: > >But as it currently stands, I don’t know if I’m exposing both the USG > >**and users of my work**

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

On Friday, February 28, 2020 1:28 PM McCoy Smith wrote: >>As one of those people who keep trying to get recognition of how the US >>Government (USG) **really is** different, I’d like to point out the following >>issues: >>Also as far as I know, none of the major Open Source licenses have a >>

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

** Although I am a practicing attorney, this should not be viewed as legal advice. I am only providing my own thoughts on the subject for the purpose of participating in discussion of a topic that I find interesting. Also, note that the law is much deeper than the points I'm touching upon here.

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > It’s mine, I crafted the work, so I have a certain amount of pride > in it (“Werksstolz” in German). However I’m standing on the shoulders > of giants (those who created Unix/BSD, MuseScore, the canon of the > fandom I’m writing fanfics

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

>>From: License-discuss On >>Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 7:46 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to d

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss dixit: >This exploration is a beautiful change of pace that I can get behind, Agreed, something positive for once! […] >across multiple projects, but I actually don’t perceive any of it as >“my code” even where the inception, authorship, and sharing

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit: >But as it currently stands, I don’t know if I’m exposing both the USG >**and users of my work** if I use a standard license when some of the >clauses don’t apply. I’m publishing digital editions of music from composers dead for lo

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >1. When I use open source code in my solution, I still feel that my >solution is mine (even though others wrote some of it). >2. When my code is used by others, I don't fe

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

This exploration is a beautiful change of pace that I can get behind, so thanks Gil! I would offer a counter-perspective to your code ownership claim. I’ve authored and modified more than a million lines of code over decades across multiple projects, but I actually don’t perceive any of it as

Re: [License-discuss] Moderation observations

So sorry, that should be singular, modera...@opensource.org On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:04 PM John Cowan wrote: > Sorry to respond publicly to this call, but moderat...@opensource.org is > bouncing with error 550, and saying "does not exist". > ___ > Lic

Re: [License-discuss] Moderation observations

Sorry to respond publicly to this call, but moderat...@opensource.org is bouncing with error 550, and saying "does not exist". ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discu

[License-discuss] Moderation observations

Hi all, Some observations for list members: 1. We currently have moderation of first posts by newly auto-enrolled members in place. Apologies if this is delaying your post - especially if you have recently come back or changed your mail address - as the volunteers involved only have a

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Josh Berkus dixit: >And yet you just managed to make a spirited refutation of the license >header proposal without once resorting to name-calling and profanity. >So clearly it is possible for any civilized human to do so. There’s quite a distance between the first two quoted lines of yours and th

[License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

I'm exploring the psychological relationship between the author of a work, and the work. i.e. parsing the phrase "my open source code" and would like your thoughts. Assume I need an algorithm, say the quadratic formula. Option A is promising and is licen

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

As one of those people who keep trying to get recognition of how the US Government (USG) **really is** different, I’d like to point out the following issues: 1) As far as I know, all of the major Open Source licenses rely on copyright for protection in some form. 2) Also as far as I

Re: [License-discuss] Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

Full disclosure: I’m writing a chapter of the 2nd edition. But since it’s not out (and I’m not paid) I’m not trying to sell you something Iain’s chapter might not go directly to your question but it does touch on how governments around the world look at using open source (including OSI as a test

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:24 AM Nigel T wrote: > It is rude and disrespectful to go to someone else’s home and continue > to prosthelytize your beliefs when previously told “sorry, no, those > beliefs are incompatible with mine”. > > Sent from my iPhone (because Apple isn’t unethical to me) > *s

Re: [License-discuss] Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

The only recent one I’m aware of is the ESA license and that was several months ago. The concerns of GOSS isn’t random or capricious and they are a special case, at least within the US, given that source written by government employees are public domain in the US and not elsewhere. Also the

Re: [License-discuss] Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

Hi McCoy, On February 28, 2020 3:12:39 AM UTC, McCoy Smith wrote: >You might want to check out Iain Mitchell’s chapter in this book > >https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-and-open-source-software-9780199680498?cc=us&lang=en&; > >There’s a second edition currently in the works but it won

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

I apologize for stepping into this thread, but we all get the point, so I hope we can move on. With each volley of email, each well meaning thread, or statement of support or disagreement, will eventually deteriorate into the same level of discourse. I do like the Talking Heads lyric of “say

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

I believe this meta-discussion has run its course and suggest it would be a good time for everyone to take a break from it. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@list

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

This list has seen a moderating voice "de-platformed" because someone conflated the "scream bloody murder" idiom with actual violence. I'm all for civility but some folks use that as a weapon against others. The whole "ethical software" concept is antithetical to open source because it is, as oth

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

It is rude and disrespectful to go to someone else’s home and continue to prosthelytize your beliefs when previously told “sorry, no, those beliefs are incompatible with mine”. Sent from my iPhone (because Apple isn’t unethical to me) > On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:10 PM, VanL wrote: > >  > > >>

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Van, When told politely that the objective is incompatible with the goals of open source is it polite to continue to push the agenda and start a new topic to attempt to continue the discussion? The answer is no, it's not polite. So he got some rather heated responses and I have zero sympathy. I

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On 2/27/20 1:49 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > > I think you have this backwards.   The mailing list to discuss ideas > compatable with the OSD are the lists hosted by opensource.org > .  This community will (most often politely) > inform people when their ideas are incompata

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On 2/26/20 4:45 PM, VanL wrote: > Strong opinions can be expressed without sharp language.  That doesn't > mean that we don't have strong opinions, or that we don't try to express > them as cogently and persuasively as we can. My point - or at least one > of my points - is that sharp language is us

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On 2/27/20 6:35 AM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > Some might even suggest he is being de-platformed by being blocked from > expressing personal political views.  I'm not suggesting this, as I'm > advocating strongly that those who wish to use software and software > licenses to discriminate be invited

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Following in my capacity as a Board member of the OSI: On 2/28/2020 7:46 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > VM Brasseur (OSI) dixit: > >> The purpose of the list is right there, as they say, on the tin: >> license discuss. > Ooooh, but you forgot to quote the most important part! > > It says, in total:

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

VM Brasseur (OSI) dixit: >The purpose of the list is right there, as they say, on the tin: >license discuss. Ooooh, but you forgot to quote the most important part! It says, in total: ‣‣‣ license-discuss@lists.opensource.org There’s an “opensource” in there that, as hosted by the OSI, directly