Pamela Chestek dixit:
> What about "this permission notice shall be included in all copies or
> substantial portions of the Software"?
That’s the licence text itself.
> What about "If the Work includes
> a 'NOTICE' text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative
> Works that You distr
On 9/19/2022 5:18 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Pamela Chestek dixit:
(and something I think about occasionally). OSD says "The license must allow
modifications and derived works ..." But it doesn't say ALL modifications. If
it is construed as meaning ALL modifications, that interpretation gets ha
Whew, I thought I missed an important decision. 😊
From: Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:50 PM
To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate
OSD?
The Neo4J case, not one involving Li
The Neo4J case, not one involving Linagora (yet) - they are just the
company behind Linshare.
Oh, I realise I said Linaro earlier - sorry! I meant Linagora.
S.
(in a personal capacity)
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:25 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
> OK I’ll bite: which case are you referring to?
> I’m no
OK I’ll bite: which case are you referring to?
I’m not seeing anything from Linaro on PACER.
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:24 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice
Pamela Chestek dixit:
> (and something I think about occasionally). OSD says "The license must allow
> modifications and derived works ..." But it doesn't say ALL modifications. If
> it is construed as meaning ALL modifications, that interpretation gets hard to
> reconcile with elements typically
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Stefano Zacchiroli
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41:06AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote:
> > Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice
> in GPLv3.
>
> ... hence, one should be able to just remove these de facto "further
> restrictions",
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41:06AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote:
> Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in
> GPLv3.
... hence, one should be able to just remove these de facto "further
restrictions", as per:
> All other non-permissive additional terms are consider
I agree with Simon that it prohibits forking. It is also my position
that trademarks are not "Legal Notices" as that term is used in the AGPL
and I can go into that in more detail if anyone is interested. (And it's
in my chapter in Amanda's upcoming book ...) For that reason it may not
be permi
Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in GPLv3.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:09 AM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "a
I agree that all looks very worrying and probably disqualifying, but the
trademark terms in clause 2 are even worse as they prohibit you from
rebranding the software as would be essential to fork:
Using these trademarks without the (TM) trademark notice symbol, removing
> these trademarks from the
Folks,
Someone just forwarded me this:
https://github.com/linagora/linshare/blob/master/COPYING.md
Take a look at "additional terms", esp:
In accordance with Section 7 and subsection (b) of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, these Appropriate
Legal Notices consist in the interf
I still find the patent language confusing. To wit:
The grant says that no patent licenses are granted for use of the Subject
Matter of the License or the Contributions which become necessary for its
lawful use due to the fact that third party
modifications are made to the Subject Matter of the L
13 matches
Mail list logo
