Re: [License-discuss] Request for feedback: public specification licensing

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 8:37 AM Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > But a standard is much more then just API and structures. As we learned: > "nobody can build a network stack just reading RFC, without looking BSD > code", for this reason "reference implementation" is important (and part > of the origina

Re: [License-discuss] Request for feedback: public specification licensing

uments > into an OS distribution package a "nice-to-have" but not compelling as a > requirement. I suppose there are people stuck on desert islands with Debian > DVDs who disagree. > > Nate > -- > nathan.p.willis > nwil...@glyphography.com <http://identi.ca/n8>

Re: [License-discuss] Curious about derived works and AI...

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:10 PM Stefano Maffulli wrote: > The cases may never be resolved and be settled out of court with > conspicuous payments. > The plaintiffs definitely want a precedent in case law, and some of them have deep pockets. > you're **vastly** overestimating your power to dra

Re: [License-discuss] Curious about derived works and AI...

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:08 AM Stefano Maffulli wrote: > You should realize that you're implicitly arguing for an extension of > copyright at the expense of freedom of research, open knowledge and open > science, before Open Source. > I'm not convinced. I think we are talking about existing imp

Re: [License-discuss] Curious about derived works and AI...

But I > suppose easy enough to automate and probably doesn't hurt much. > > But yeah, sounds like, for now, I just have to make a choice ignoring this > concern. > > Thanks again! > > Cheers > > Miles > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:14 AM Bruce Perens via Li

Re: [License-discuss] Curious about derived works and AI...

and submitted tens of thousands > of public comments for the creation of this document. > Although it is not a complete document, it provides an understanding > of how Article 30-4 of the Copyright Act, which is seen as fully > endorsing machine learning, actually functions. > >

Re: [License-discuss] Updating the PHP license

We are not your lawyer, and you really should have one. Everything you get from this mailing list falls short of legal advice. Many of us are not admitted to the bar, and even the ones who are are not contracted to advise you. That said, it looks to me like you are within clause 5, but in your pla

Re: [License-discuss] Curious about derived works and AI...

1. Not in Japan, because they've decided to make their law that way. 2. It should be the case in most countries, but it is not so far because it's not literal copying and cases which are attempting to make the point that it is copying are still in litigation. On Sat, May 25, 2024, 06:55 Miles Geor

[License-discuss] Fwd: Open Source license question

I think our colleagues might have been a little swift to say "everything's just great" without taking a closer look. If you're actually making money you can engage an expert who would take a little more time on this. I'm not volunteering because I'm generally too expensive for a small business. But

Re: [License-discuss] I edited the CC0 license to solve patent issue, need some advice

I think the proper language would be to grant rights to parents that are "necessarily practiced in the work as issued by the grantor". Because of course anyone can modify the work to exercise any patent claim you happen to own. CC0 was never all that strong. It is probably going to be parsed in co

[License-discuss] Blue OakModel License and the license reinvention dilemma

I would like to discuss the genesis of the Blue Oak Model License - which we have just been considering - and its problems. The Blue Oak Council was an ambitious effort by three lawyers who have all done more successful work in the Open Source space. They went to the trouble of forming a 501(c)3 fo

Re: [License-discuss] Question about Blue Oak License

On the other hand, I don't understand why more people don't specifically mention them. It took literally 3 additional words the last time I tried. ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Sour

Re: [License-discuss] Question about Blue Oak License

the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens K6BP ___

Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

This is really very simple. Nations are sovereign powers. You can read up on what a sovereign power is. They have to agree to be sued. To make a license that would stop Putin from bombing Ukraine would require the existence of a god who enforced licenses. Within a nation you can to some degree enf

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Thanks Bruce On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 18:45 Josh Berkus wrote: > On 2/6/24 02:01, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > > I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other things > > that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing with &

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

d not be doing (and > probably should also have a policy that > > potentially frowns upon anonymized submissions) and put something about > that in the pages on license discussion/review. Might want to revisit that. > > > > > > > > From: Bruce Perens > >

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

P.S. You must agree: a vaccine license in 2019 was prescient. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 18:46 Bruce Perens wrote: > Well that joke backfired on me, didn't it? I made a charicture of > "ethical" licenses, and ended up withdrawing it because I was afraid they'd > actuall

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

ccine License submission and subsequent > history as an example of what people should not be doing (and probably > should also have a policy that potentially frowns upon anonymized > submissions) and put something about that in the pages on license > discussion/review. Might want to rev

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

r review. Which he got. > > Do you disagree that this license can’t get OSI approval? > > > > *From:* Bruce Perens > *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2024 7:47 AM > *To:* mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] License Review

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Note that he sent his review request to license-discuss. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 15:45 McCoy Smith wrote: > Daniel: > > In order to have a license reviewed, you need to provide the assurances > and information about the license ( > https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/) including that it

Re: [License-discuss] Request for Comment: Software and Development License, version 3.0

Hi Alec, You don't mention if you are a lawyer, or if you have used one. It is kindest to the developers to give them a license that is the product of a legal professional, because of the greater probability that it will perform as expected when a judge interprets it, rather than letting the deve

Re: [License-discuss] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 7:00 AM Pamela Chestek < pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote: > If you could add your comment on the wiki, that would be very helpful. > I'll try again later, but at the moment I get "server not responding". ___ The opinions exp

Re: [License-discuss] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

nse-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens K6BP ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the send

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] in opposition of 'choice of law' provisions in FOSS licenses (was: For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2)

listing process, capable of being initiated by someone other than > the license steward, for a long time, but the OSI has been pretty > resistant to this idea. > > Richard > > > _______ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of

Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

IMO for specialized licenses (I'm thinking of SIL again) 1. There has to be a better license first. Which might unfortunately mean making it sometimes, and tolerating yet another license. Making it is for someone admitted to the Bar to do. 2. The better license must be evangelized to the community

Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Br

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

d in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

+1 919-800-8033 > > ___ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. &

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

ess. > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license- > > discuss_lists.opensource.org > > > ___ > The opinions expressed in t

Re: [License-discuss] Question about AGPLv3 with a Plugin Exception

;> draft >>> these things, and so many potential pitfalls, and that is what leads me >>> to >>> first focus on “are you really sure this is what you need?” questions >>> first. >>> >>> -- bkuhn >>> >> __

Re: [License-discuss] Question about AGPLv3 with a Plugin Exception

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:01 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > While the post is about additional permissions unlike the one Joel is > pondering, the on-topic point there is that there are so many ways to draft > these things, and so many potential pitfalls, and that is what leads me to > first focus o

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Should fork a project on github be seen as distribution of origin project?

t particularly different. So yeah, put the notice in MODIFICATIONS.md as I suggested, or any file but the license text and NOTICES, in order to give people who follow you the most latitude to comply with the license without making a mess. Bruce -- Bru

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Should fork a project on github be seen as distribution of origin project?

gt; necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license

Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?

ions of AFL and OSL **prior to version 3.0** > >>> are no longer valid. Please remove those earlier versions. /Larry > >>> > >>> Lawrence Rosen > >>> 707-478-8932 > >>> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > > > ___

Re: [License-discuss] The value of open source

Javier Serano is involved in Open Source at CERN and bleeding edge physics research. On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 08:58 Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Below is the acknowledgement from an important paper published today by > CERN. “Observation of structure in the J/ψ-pair mass spectrum >

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Coherent Open Source - Getting underway next Friday

>> only licenses necessary for anyone to use. >> >> More seriously, is this the "only three licenses are necessary" argument, >> or is there a different set? If so, why? >> >> Thanks, >> Van >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:29 PM Br

Re: [License-discuss] Storing source artifacts in ELF files (was: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict)

7, 2019 at 1:08 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > Bruce Perens wrote on Monday, October 7, 2019 3:52 PM: > > Rather than do this, why not just make an existing > > archive format executable? Just sticking #! and the > > interpreter

Re: [License-discuss] Storing source artifacts in ELF files (was: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict)

Rather than do this, why not just make an existing archive format executable? Just sticking #! and the interpreter name at the front should be sufficient. If you execute it, it extracts and runs a native executable for your architecture, or one for any interpreter such as the JVM. That can be the f

Re: [License-discuss] GPLv2+ce question - are you forced to make your project open source.

Please keep in mind that most of the folks on the list, though competent in this area and helpful, are not lawyers, and even if one of them is a lawyer, he or she is not *your *lawyer contracted to you. So, you have all of the risk, despite the probably-good advice you have received. If you would

Re: [License-discuss] WordPress GPL software

justify recommending that people buy WP-related products from this site. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 8:17 AM Bruce Perens wrote: > >> It would help if you would name the specific module and vendor. >> There is certainly nothing wrong with maki

Re: [License-discuss] WordPress GPL software

___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

uot;remove the freedom" license. -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

On the side of the person needing to comply, one need only make sure the source code is carefully published. On the side of the person wishing to access the source code, the only alternative is to turn on logging or use a hacked client. I don't think it would be permissible to emit no notice regard

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Coherent Open Source - Getting underway next Friday

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 08:32 Pamela Chestek wrote: > To what end? Do you expect everyone to relicense existing software? > New software is still being produced :-) Gil brings up social or ethical motivations for licensing. I can probably use these on a slide. You can also look at it from a _bus

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

efer to FSF in considering these. Patrick Schleizer: > Generally a good idea but in this specific case, this might be beyond the wishes expressed by FSF? Bruce Perens: We do have to protect their right to attribution, even if we remove trademarks. The problem is that we can't give FS

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019, 2:10 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > > I was expecting you to also say that "we can't give FSF monopoly to decide > the boundaries of copyleft" and "OSI was founded to be inclusive also to > the needs of commercial companies". Surely this omission was just an error? > Heck no. I ha

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:08 PM VanL wrote: > I am a supporter of the OSI. I think the OSI is important, and that it > serves an important function. But I can also see that some people are > already choosing to bypass the OSI for various reasons. > This is as it should be. The OSD is more than

Re: [License-discuss] Coordinated release of security vulnerability information.

I am most worried that a fix is actually an exploit, and that by limiting the number of eyes which can look at the fix for a period of time, a wide time window for exploitation is made available to the perpetrator. No shortage of such fixes have opened security holes, unintentionally. _

Re: [License-discuss] Coordinated release of security vulnerability information.

These dissidents really do exist. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make it > infinitesimally harder to protect them. > > Brendan > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 14:10 Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit: >> >> >As a software aut

Re: [License-discuss] Coordinated release of security vulnerability information.

saying that you would argue against allowing a delayed > disclosure on a policy basis, because you would prefer that there be no > opening for a vendor to delay disclosure to you. Is that right? I would > like to hear you explain more. > > Thanks, > Van > > > On T

Re: [License-discuss] Coordinated release of security vulnerability information.

code, it just > temporarily modifies the timing. > > Thanks, > Van > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-dis

Re: [License-discuss] Fact-gathering on OSI-approved licenses

the > information is the first step. > > Thanks, > Pam > > -- > Pamela Chestek > Chair, License Review Committee > Open Source Initiative > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu wrote: > I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I > released for free, but > would deny anyone else the benefit of improvements they make (privately or > not) to my code. Ignoring Howard's return umbrage, isn't this a vali

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > > I am offended by any alleged legitimacy granted to the exclusive rights of > software authors being allowed to regulate private activities. > Try to maintain a collegial tone. You could as well say that you feel very strongly about the

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:31 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Bruce, this seems to be a real stretch about "field of endeavor." What is > the "field?" > Any means of doing business with the software at all! It doesn't seem at all a reach that there is a field of endeavor in doing business. Thanks

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:27 PM VanL wrote: > A person can run the unmodified program (and even a modified one) without > having any obligations as long.as they run it for themselves, for their > private purposes. > Van, Haven't you just very clearly characterized this term as a use restriction

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

only difference under discussion is *when. *The OSD doesn't have any language regarding when the distribution terms may, or may not, be activated. Thanks Bruce -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discus

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

OpenLDAP does not provide an interactive user interface, so that provision of AGPL does not apply to it. It provides an interface meant to work only with programs, rather than a human being. In contrast, the first generation of internet servers where intended to respond to connection from the tel

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:15 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > a) whether these restrictions of private activities should be considered > consistent with the OSD. > The OSD rules don't protect your private activities from the terms of Open Source licenses. > b) whether, separately from the OSI or o

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond wrote: > Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that offends you? > Obviously, the act which would offend many reasonable software developers who place reciprocal terms upon their works is not your typing. It is your creation of

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:15 PM Russell McOrmond wrote: > I am left puzzled how the Affero clauses, which also target SaaS (or what > RMS likes to call Service as a Software Substitute - SaaSS), passed the > OSD #6 test? > I wasn't around when this license was argued, so other folks can represen

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:32 PM VanL wrote: > > There is not a 1:1 correspondence between a tactic and a field of endeavor. > I submit that a field of endeavor incorporates all visible details of the operation of a business. Does that mean there is a 1:1 correspondence between tactics and fields

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

; that says "you may use this for any field of endeavor" that allows current > licenses, but disallows the CAL? > I would simply say "You may use the software for any purpose" is a sufficient filter. I would say that OSD #6 states this same rule, in differ

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:46 AM VanL wrote: > > This is incorrect. I have corrected you on this point repeatedly, but you > continue to make this unsupported argument. > Van, In a discussion like this, you can expect people to disagree, and to *continue *to disagree. It seems to me that if we

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM Simon Phipps wrote: > That's calling the user data clauses both outside the scope of open source > licensing and so integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the > same time. > Terms which are outside of the scope of Open Source licensing *are *likely to

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

ations” is intended to capture a > reciprocal effect via patents? > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

It looks like this is the main reason for objection: *No Withholding User Data* *Throughout any period in which You exercise any of the permissions granted to You under this License, You must also provide to any Recipient to whom you provide services via the Work, a no-charge copy, provided in a

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

cations (and push against the concept of Freedom Zero). >> _______ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensou

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

are so onerous as to > discourage any serious use. Are there any significant projects using the > RPL or similar licenses? > > Brendan > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.

Re: [License-discuss] Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

I believe this was created by lawyers well known to us who, in their attempt to use plain language, might shoot themselves in the foot. On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:37 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > • it looks like it has been written without a lawyer involved at > all, not even looking it over aft

Re: [License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

ge > in a legal field? I can say from personal experience although I believe > that everyone here has the best of intentions such a question sounds like a > crocodile offering passage across the river in his mouth. I say this as > someone with no vested interest in this specific discus

Re: [License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

at 6:51 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >> Van, >> >> Sorry! I did not mean to show disrespect for your technical competence. >> > > Did you specify anywhere which technical questions Van has be

Re: [License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

n.lindb...@gmail.com > m: 214.364.7985 > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 2:37 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >> Are we finished discussing the Cryptographic Autonomy License? >> >> I am disappointed that Arthur Broc

[License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

Are we finished discussing the Cryptographic Autonomy License? I am disappointed that Arthur Brock did not step up to explain his license and left all of the representation to Van. Van is not really an expert in the technical needs that motivated Arthur to ask him to work on that license, and in m

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Just like SCO. They claimed that their BPF software had been copied. Common IPR mistake number one! Carefully save all of the metadata _with_the_software_, not with your legal file cabinet which will go in a different direction from the software when your company is acquired or spins off a division

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

chnology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict/ > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable > media player from my cold dead hand

Re: [License-discuss] Conference on Open Source business methods

s speaking that offer services as their main business, etc. Thanks Bruce On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:53 AM Dirk Riehle wrote: > Who is we? Is this an OSI event? I thought it was a commercial event. > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 06:16 Bruce Perens via License-discuss < > licens

[License-discuss] Conference on Open Source business methods

We're having a conference on Open Source business methods: https://ti.to/open-core-summit/open-core-summit/en Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, September 19-20. Ticket prices are about to go up, so this would be a good time to book. -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Ca

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:51 PM Luis Villa wrote: > There is of course still an area of overlap between administrators and > users, so you're of course correct to say "system administrators are not > always SaaS providers". But the union of "user" and "administrator" is > shrinking over time; the

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

their programs. I don't believe they will. And I don't believe that encumbering user data is in any way a step *forward *for the freedom of that user. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:07 PM Luis Villa wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Pamela Chestek > wrote: > >> >> O

Re: [License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:43 PM Christine Hall wrote: > It's vendors/developers seeking enterprise customers who want to continue > calling their software open source, but be able to use non open source > restrictions because their business plan doesn't work. That's correct. And one point I make

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:21 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Copying of parts of the headers is fine Not just part, the entire header. I have seen copyrightable art in headers in the form of multi-line macros, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Headers define interfaces between progra

Re: [License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

James, I understand the problem of the companies pushing for that, but a license that everyone can use except Amazon, or SaaS companies, or SaaS companies over a certain size, isn't copyleft and isn't "strong" copyleft. It's just restrictive. Heather and Kyle came up with "Polyform", which IMO soun

Re: [License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:00 PM Christine Hall wrote: > as long as there are permissive licenses, the enterprise is quite happy > with the way things are. Well, obviously, it's *restrictive *licenses they want from us now. And they can have them from Polyform and co., we don't and can't restric

Re: [License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:20 PM Scott Peterson wrote: > Helping lawyers is one thing; the OSI does this. > License creation efficiency maximization is another; a trade association > might do this. > Yes. Having an organization that efficiently approved Open Source licenses until there were hundr

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

cense-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

ngs that would "assist attorneys to craft open > source licenses"? > > Thanks, > Van > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >It's the instantiation of Freedom One: "The freedom to study how the > >program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish." A disclosure obligation does not curtail your freedom to change the program so that it does your

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:13 AM VanL wrote: > It is a fundamental element of LISP that "data" and "program" are > expressed (or expressable) using the same syntax. > This is really stretching. All programming languages have some way of encoding data, text strings fit the definition. A lot of it

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

ught that the question was whether or not it was a prohibited act of simple copying of the API. -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinf

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 AM VanL wrote: > Data access is not out of scope for software licensing generally ... > I would like to understand where in the OSD that is being found. Didn't we already discuss this extensively on license-review? There are complaints that I repeat myself, so I hesi

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:38 AM VanL wrote: > I don't see how this position can possibly be logically consistent with > the broad understanding of open source: A foundational license of both free > software and open source, that is not FOSS if it is used as explicitly > described within the licen

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:32 AM VanL wrote: > Let's assume for a moment that 1) APIs are copyrightable, and 2) I have an > "expressive" API (for whatever value of "expressive" you choose). If I > write a reimplementation that copies the "expressive" elements from your > API, are you arguing that

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Cowan wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > It is the computer version of a trade secret. > I just can't stretch my mind to encompass th

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM VanL wrote: > As argued by the FSF FAQ , > the inclusion of *any* code element from a copylefted source makes the > entire work a derived work. > At the same time, they lay no claim to an independently developed implem

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:04 AM Christine Hall wrote: > I would think that software being accessed only by employees, whether > through SaaS or by installation on a workstation, constitutes private > use by the licensee. There are probably un-litigated questions here. Like, is a consultant work

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:55 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering > this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible, so it’s not possible to run > AGPL-licenced software with security support. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Copyright on APIs

oes not in any way restrict independent implementation of an API. In contrast, an enforceable copyright on an API is patent-like in its effect, without the limited term of patents. Thanks Bruce On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:34 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Pere

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Copyright on APIs

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:59 PM Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote: > this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion. > I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft". It's being used to represent copyleft with the addition of various things that copyle

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Copyright on APIs

nts working together. By the way, > regarding linking, this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in > my opinion. > All the best, > Patrice-Emmanuel > > Le sam. 29 juin 2019 à 15:08, Pamela Chestek a > écrit : > >> >> On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens v

  1   2   >