Hi Nicholas,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:44 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> 3.1. Permissions Granted
> Conditioned on compliance with section 4, and subject to the limitations
> of section 3.2, Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free,
> non-exclus
Hello, I wanted to get clarification on section 3.1(b) of the Cryptographic
Autonomy License.
The relevant text from the license, as approved:
3.1. Permissions Granted
Conditioned on compliance with section 4, and subject to the limitations of
section 3.2, Licensor grants You the world-wide, r
* Henrik Ingo:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that
>> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL.
>
> Note that the CAL specifically does not share this problem. It simply
> require
Or RPL 1.0 et seq
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 2:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> I'm tired of everyone forgetting OSL 3.0, as if AGPL is the only license
> worth considering. Licensing bigots! /Larry
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Florian Weimer
> Sent: Th
Larry, if it makes you feel any better, I always think of you during each
of these email threads!
henrik
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:29 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I'm tired of everyone forgetting OSL 3.0, as if AGPL is the only license
> worth considering. Licensing bigots! /Larry
>
>
> -Ori
Hi Florian
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that
> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL.
>
>
Note that the CAL specifically does not share this problem. It simply
requires you to p
I'm tired of everyone forgetting OSL 3.0, as if AGPL is the only license
worth considering. Licensing bigots! /Larry
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss On
Behalf Of Florian Weimer
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:19 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: [License-disc
Hi Florian,
The CAL does not share the issue you identify with regard to the AGPL and
GPLv1. You said:
With that I do not mean the predominant use of the AGPL as a GPL
> variant for open-core business models, but that the AGPL requires to
> provide source code access over the network even if the
I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that
its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL.
With that I do not mean the predominant use of the AGPL as a GPL
variant for open-core business models, but that the AGPL requires to
provide source code access ove
Thanks all for this discussion, I really appreciate how folks are engaging.
It's edifying.
I think we all know, at this point, that OSI is extremely limited in terms
of organizational capacity. Our staff and board need to be laser focused
with the use of our time in order to keep our programs humm
Tobie
> I believe that to many open source practitioners, the meaning of open
source is much broader than the OSD.
It's even more complicated. The term _open source_ is also used by the
intelligence industry too, and means something very different. Looking for
open source jobs in the greater Wash
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 2:18 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Brian Behlendorf
> wrote:
> > Any long term community or institution unwilling to occasionally
> reconsider any of its core principles is one doomed to eventual
> irrelevance. The U.S. Constitution has been su
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
Cc: Gil Yehuda
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors
outside license agreements?
One of the challenges the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:17 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> I'd like to learn if either is in play as a motivation, or if it is
> something else. Perhaps someone with insight into and speaks on behalf of
> the Ethical Source Movement can help cla
I'd like to learn if either is in play as a motivation, or if it is
something else. Perhaps someone with insight into and speaks on behalf of
the Ethical Source Movement can help clarify. It makes a difference.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:52
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:44 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
wrote:
> tl;dr: What about the classification "Source-available" is insufficient for
> the Ethical Source movement such that changing the OSD is seen as a benefit?
> Why not proceed developing and enhancing the Ethical Source movem
One of the challenges the Ethical Source Movement will continue to face is
related to 'ethical' their *nom de net*. But it appears to be a distraction
for the issues being raised to this list. I urge people who care about
ethics to pursue ethical pursuits. The questions posed here, however, have
to
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:17 AM Russell Nelson wrote:
On 3/18/20 12:40 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Note that I am fully supportive of the position that there may be and
> > are Open Source licenses, in the sense of meeting the OSD's terms,
> > that are not OSI Certified (TM).
>
> Who decides that?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 18:41 McCoy Smith wrote:
> So the claim that Josh or anyone from OSI has the ability to give better
> data than that which the election results page shows everyone (or at least
> everyone eligible to vote) would seem to be false.
>
Just to clarify, that wasn't a claim. It
On 3/18/20 12:40 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Note that I am fully supportive of the position that there may be and
are Open Source licenses, in the sense of meeting the OSD's terms,
that are not OSI Certified (TM).
Who decides that?
___
License-discus
> On Mar 18, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>
> Any long term community or institution unwilling to occasionally reconsider
> any of its core principles is one doomed to eventual irrelevance. The U.S.
> Constitution has been successfully amended 27 times, with the first ten of
21 matches
Mail list logo
