From: Richard Fontana
Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 11:42 AM
To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Cc: Nigel T
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage
governments from bespoke licenses?
NOSA 2.0 was not rejected as such -- the def
It's pretty simple, I would like our app to be accurately classified as
"Open Source" by the OSI.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:14 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hillel Coren
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I saw this comment "[the license] does not appear to be
On 3/30/20 5:17 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
>
> I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be
> for someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
>
We can notify the original author, but we don
These are good questions and will be interesting to discuss if the group
does decide to take on creating an AAL 2.0.
Thank you for sharing the article, it's an interesting read!
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:06 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> What you are looking for is a mandatory, legally enforcea
On 3/30/20 8:59 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Assuming this is the same person https://github.com/edsuom
> it is interesting that his present-day code is apparently all released
> under the Apache License 2.0.
Yeah, that was the first thing I looked at when I remarked that the
license didn't have s
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I saw this comment "[the license] does not appear to be used for any
> currently available/working software", that simply isn't true. I'm one of
> the co-founders of Invoice Ninja, we use this license and think it's a
> great
What you are looking for is a mandatory, legally enforceable, "powered by"
visual indicator to exist when "the software" is run. You also wish that
license to be approved by the OSI as Open Source. While I can't and don't
speak for the OSI, I don't consider what you are looking for to be open
sour
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fontana
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:59 AM
> To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
> > Originally written by Edwin A. Suominen for
This is similar to my take on the matter (as articulated in my unsuccessful
Board candidacy platform:
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI+Board+of+Directors/Board+Member+Ele
ctions/2020+Individual+and+Affiliate+Elections/Smith2020 )
On your license proliferation concern, I think that ship
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:52 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> According to the OSI’s website, here is the author information on that
> license:
>
>
>
> Originally written by Edwin A. Suominen for licensing his PRIVARIA secure
> networking software (see www.privaria.org). The author, who is not an
> a
According to the OSI’s website, here is the author information on that license:
Originally written by Edwin A. Suominen for licensing his PRIVARIA secure
networking software (see www.privaria.org). The author, who is not an attorney,
places this license template into the public domain along w
Hi Russell,
Thank you for your response!
It's clear we're approaching this from different perspectives, I think the
best next step is to work towards an AAL 2.0 which will enable more shared
code AND better licenses.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:24 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
> their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'. I'd
> argue in practice man
(Comment below, I've heavily edited to focus in, please read earlier portions
of the thread for context)
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:06 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:22 PM Josh Berkus mailto:j...@berkus.org > > wrote:
1. license does not in fact conform to the OSD (was erro
> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be for
someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
henrik
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:38 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> Understood, I think then we're
Understood, I think then we're in agreement then :)
Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:07 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> I was responding to your more general question "Do you believe a
> developer should have the option to share their code without fe
I was responding to your more general question "Do you believe a
developer should have the option to share their code without fearing a
competitor will use their code against them?". That was not specific
to any attribution requirement or place of the attribution.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:46 AM H
Hi Kevin,
Adding an attribution (for example in the page footer) doesn't prevent a
business from reselling the app, it just makes it less likely they'll want
to.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with
> the
Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with
the OSD (since that is explicitly discrimination against a specific
field of endeavor), and thus any license which provides that feature
is not OSD-compliant. The feature you are asking for is the same core
feature of the Commons
Hi Henrik,
Thank you as well! I appreciate that everyone here is just trying to
determine what's best for OSS as a whole.
> The specific text of the AAL that is problematic...
100% agreed, the current AAL license is outdated to the point where it
doesn't make sense any more. We chose it because
Hi Hillel
First of all, thanks for taking the time to join this discussion. A key
question for us is whether and how we can find projects using a license
that is being suggested for removal / de-certification. It's encouraging to
see news about this discussion reached you and you we willing to eng
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:41 PM Richard Fontana
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:08 PM Henrik Ingo
> wrote:
> >
> >> Since none of our current problem licenses are (3), maybe we could skip
> >> that criterion? It seems too subjective to actually employ. Here's my
> >> suggested criteria bas
22 matches
Mail list logo
