k of a FOSS system. Beyond that,
software is generally just better written to be more easily extensible
these days, too.
[1] … which is its own irony, since the best DVCS's are, themselves,
FOSS, but are widely used to help make authorship of proprietary forks
of FOSS easier t
> On 10/27/23 11:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I'm sad (but also sadly not surprised) to see that OSI is not willing to
> outright criticize this model, since it is primarily a proprietary software
> model.
Josh Berkus wrote:
> If researchers start out with a predefined
hat position, but it seems OSI is more neutral on
proprietary software than against it these days?
IMO, taking a “neutral” position on a practice that is clearly bad for
consumers isn't really neutrality; it's merely tacit support of the incumbent
authority.
Sin
Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock of Qualcomm wrote:
> Without commenting on WHETHER any licenses should be
> deprecated/disapproved/legacy, nor on WHICH licenses are appropriate
> candidates, I would like to suggest a consideration related to HOW to do
> so.
+1 (… and this may be the first time in
Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I'm asking that the conversation between Larry and Bradley been held
> privately. Both have had your say publicly and I'd prefer that the dispute
> not escalate here.
I had, in fact, started an a offlist discussion with Larry before Pam posted
this, and I can report that La
Richard Fontana wrote at 18:28 (PST) on Tuesday:
> The FSF presumably did not see the presence of a choice of law clause as
> raising an inherent free software problem (as they recognized licenses
> like MPL 1.1, EPL 1.0, and the QPL as free software licenses)
I can speak to that, since, while I n
Pam,
Pamela Chestek wrote at 08:40 (PST) today:
> I'm taking the next step of moving the discussion to
> license-discuss. Please continue the discussion there.
That makes, sense, although as a point of order, I think you might have
typo'ed your email moving the thread. Your post moving it didn't
> > Zack had replied:
> >>> I agree that the uncertainty here is enough, in practice, to keep users
> >>> from actually exercising their rights of stripping further restrictions,
> >>> as per *GPL-3 licenses.
I replied further:
> > Indeed. IMO, the best solution here would be for the OSI to join
Florian Weimer wrote:
> But when checking for OSD compliance, we shouldn't play this game. If new
> licenses are unclear and appear self-contradictory, then they shouldn't be
> deemed compliant, particularly if there is still just one copyright holder
> using the license, so that it can be easily
McCoy Smith wrote at 11:41 (PDT) on Monday:
>> Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in
>> GPLv3.
(It's AGPLv3 in this situations that we're discussing, but the sections in
question McCoy is referring to are the same in both AGPLv3 and GPLv3.)
Linagora's LinShare
Joel Kelley wrote:
> However, a small team faced with changing business rules is all too likely
> to end up hardcoding a position or employee ID number into an approval
> plugin instead of using an environmental variable.
It's definitely an engineering problem if there is hard-coding of this sort
McCoy Smith wrote:
> the … site does list the Classpath Exception
> (https://spdx.org/licenses/Classpath-exception-2.0.html) and the GCC RTL
> Exception (https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-3.1.html), of which you
> say you were a "key drafter," so I'm not sure why you think that site
> should
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>>> Please keep in mind that if your application incorporates or relies upon
>>> any other code (to which you do not hold the copyrights) that is also
>>> licensed under the AGPL, you cannot grant an exception (really, an
>>> 'additional permission') on your code which is co
Pamela Chestek wrote:
> There probably are also consumer protection laws in the US that could be
> used with the same defective product theory you mention for Germany. These
> are state laws and I'm not familiar with them enough to know if they would
> apply in this situation. However, I suspect th
cense. Meanwhile,
as Pam points out, Van's license is an *even more* of a radical leap than the
Affero clause was. In short, the discussion of this nascent license is,
frankly, too premature for license-review. Presumably it's reasonable fodder
for license-discuss. :)
--
Bradley M.
salient
point to OSI's analysis of the license.
[0] By mandatory, I mean that the original licensor may not prohibit later
downstream redistributors from distributing the copyrighted material
under newer versions of the license published by the license steward.
[
day after FOSDEM). The CFP closes VERY SOON, on
Wednesday 14 November 2018 at 23:59 AOE. The full CFP is available at:
https://2019.copyleftconf.org/program/call-for-proposals
This event is a first-of-its-kind conference to discuss the future of
copyleft.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
Pls. support the cha
usually aren't. Judges aren't easily fooled by "work
arounds" that seek to circumvent the law, and in my experience when they
encounter such "work arounds" of the law being attempted, the judges are
become more suspicious that something nefarious is going on.
--
Bradl
hat pandemic problem (and the other pandemic problems of
non-compliance), so much outweigh any threat from one bad-actor-enforcer who
"once-upon-a-time made an argument not supported by the license text", that
the latter seems risible to me as a concern. I think we should continue to
read co
19 matches
Mail list logo
