I would add that deprecation often implies that you should stop using a
feature/api now, because it will be removed in some future version, maybe
years from now.
For this discussion I have used deprecate as synonymous to such
notification. It's possible someone else could use it synonymously to th
"Deprecation" is used here in the computer sciencey sense:
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28957/deprecation
"Deprecation is the process of marking attributes or features that should be
avoided by users, including Web developers. Deprecation may be applied for
various reasons, including one
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:06 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved
> licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses
>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> I understand the concept of decertifying or removing, but I am very
> confused by the use of the term "deprecate." The current category of
> licenses are:
>
> Popular and widely-used or with strong communities
> International
> Special purp
I understand the concept of decertifying or removing, but I am very
confused by the use of the term "deprecate." The current category of
licenses are:
Popular and widely-used or with strong communities
International
Special purpose
Other/Miscellaneous
Redundant
Non-reusable
Superseded
Voluntari
On 3/31/20 9:13 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:08 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
wrote:
The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been approved
recently.
You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices contained in
the Source Code
On 3/31/20 1:13 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> FWIW, if you take out the badgeware part of AAL, you're left with nothing
> much that's different from, say, BSD (upon which AAL is based). There is
> paragraph 4, but I'm not sure that's adds anything to straight 3-clause BSD.
> So I'm not sure what would b
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:09 AM
> To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
> Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
>
> Why? I don't see how an origi
On 3/31/20 8:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> It would be bad form to use the same name though. But as a fallback
> option I could of course submit for review a new license that was based
> on AAL but with a new name.
>
Why? I don't see how an original license author has any moral right to
the name.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:32 AM
> To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] CPAL 1.0 License | Badge-ware | Clarification
>
> I wouldn't consider 4-clause
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> FSF’s definition of what is a free software license includes badgeware
> licenses (because such licenses still meet the 4 software freedoms), but they
> also do not recommend use of badgeware licenses. See the comment on the
> 4-clause BS
FSF’s definition of what is a free software license includes badgeware licenses
(because such licenses still meet the 4 software freedoms), but they also do
not recommend use of badgeware licenses. See the comment on the 4-clause BSD:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
It would be bad form to use the same name though. But as a fallback option
I could of course submit for review a new license that was based on AAL but
with a new name.
My Permissive Attribution License (MyPAL)
henrik
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/30/20 5:17 AM, Henr
Hi Syed
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:41 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
arsa...@buddyexpress.net> wrote:
> [1][2] Does the CPAL 1.0 considered badgeware license?
>
>
Yes, it is the other license that has a similar attribution clause as AAL.
Although it was approved by OSI in the past, there have been
McCoy, if you're willing to talk with Diane, I'd appreciate it! I did talk
with her quite a while ago about the USG's issues, but nothing much came of the
interaction (she seemed very, very busy at the time). If you're able to
continue the discussions, I would be very interested in seeing wher
After many many years of reading and participating on -discuss and -review,
I've concluded that:
1) I get no benefit from reading these lists any more
2) I can rarely contribute in an effective way
3) Everything seems to be the same old, same old, under a different name
4) I wind up muting more
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:08 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
wrote:
>
> The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been
> approved recently.
>
> > You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices contained
> > in the Source Code (the “Notices”), and provide al
[1][2] Does the CPAL 1.0 considered badgeware license?
Name | Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL-1.0)
OSI | APPROVED
FSF | APPROVED
14. ADDITIONAL TERM: ATTRIBUTION
[3] .may include in Exhibit B (“Attribution Information”) a requirement
that each time an Executable and Sour
> *If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need
not make them do so.*
I never read GPL in this detail though and its interesting, but thos
19 matches
Mail list logo
