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

Hi Nate, Unfortunately you have a fatal assumption here: that your standard can be copyrighted. In reality, *the copyright you can assert on a standard is extremely limited and** probably could not be enforced against software implementations of the standard at all. *You can enforce that people do

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

Louis Villa contributed this license and is a legal professional, although I don't believe that law practice is what he does for a living these days. He's easy to find online. I believe that he even had the cooperation of other lawyers in making this license, there was a blue oak organization for a

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

I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other things that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing with legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal neophyte who thinks they've invented better licensing is not. On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 09:24 Brian Behlen

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 > actually approve it! It was meant to be

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

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 actually approve it! It was meant to be like a "moot bill". A lot of people did not then, and still do not get the concept. Silly me for expecting them to. I

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

It is a crayon license, and the author points out its whimsical nature while wishfully saying the terms bind anyway. There is no point in passing it on for disapproval or doing anything else to take it seriously. Just politely tell the author there isn't a chance. IMO if you want to help the open

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

> The license does not have terms that structurally put the licensor in a more favored position than any licensee. Please use "must". Does is like "shall". This is one of a zillion references on why not to use "shall": https://www.isba.org/barnews/2009/11/25/must-vs-shall On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at

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

I have seen a reasonably-well-funded United States company use QPL, when it had no legal presence in Norway and no attorney admitted to Norway's courts. This is another problem with choice of venue. The users don't understand it (or just don't look that hard) and commit to something that would actu

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

Hi Larry, I am sorry to say so, but you really made this sound as if you were taking it as a personal threat. Unnecessarily. Your own license was written by an attorney, yourself, and is not in such danger as the "crayon" licenses, which certainly should be deprecated, any my first candidate would

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

My interpretation is that OSD #3, in the words after the comma, does permit immutable terms. Attribution is usually a statement of copyright ownership and qualifies as a term. Rants do not. On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Pamela Chestek dixit: > > > What about "this per

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

> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. This actually restricts the scope of modifications. The license is permitted to restrict modifications to only those that allow the work to

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

We've had long discussions about badgeware in the past. Just search for that word in the list archives. Not an OSD-compliant license. On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41 AM McCoy Smith wrote: > Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in > GPLv3. > > > -Original Messa

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

Ben, The companies I do Open Source compliance work for would not be inclined to approve an Open Source review of what you suggest for use in the company, due to ambiguity. Licenses can, and should, clearly state when an API is meant to be a connector to another work which can be under a differen

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?

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:50 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > The NOTICE file is the absolutely worst place for this as it’s an > append-only must-not-be-removed requirement of the Apache 2 licence > which I always found questionable in the first place… I agree. A file called NOTICES has a special s

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

This term of the license is from the pre-github days when it wasn't always so obvious that the program was modified, and there was concern that the modified program would be of lesser quality than what the original author would have written, thus defaming the original author. What I allowed for lon

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

Summary: Larry is still Larry The situation you are all left in is that the largest companies have figured out how to operate a resource-extraction paradigm, in which they obtain the maximal utility from the Open Source community. much as if they were mining or logging a natural resource. Communit

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

I reject that these licenses are specific to different communities at all. There are perfectly good strategic reasons why a free software person would use a BSD license, an Open Source person would use a GPL, and all of the licenses are acceptable to both camps . We are not doing restricted-availab

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

There aren't actually trusted tools on the system to get the source from an ELF. There may be tools, but they are not trusted, because nobody uses them in their normal lives. Put 512 bytes in front of a TAR archive, with the "#! /bin/source_embedded\n" string at the start, and you are done. The int

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

Well, that site appears to be selling things that you can download for free, and not compensating the developers. It would make more sense for you to recommend that people download the software for free from the developers own sites. I have not audited that they are in full compliance regarding al

Re: [License-discuss] WordPress GPL software

It would help if you would name the specific module and vendor. There is certainly nothing wrong with making another module that does the same thing as a high-priced one, and selling that. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:15 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > * zak: > > > SPECIFICALLY, can someone else legally

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

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:03 AM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss wrote: > You’re right, I apologize, I let my engineering fascination get the best > of me. GitHub would probably be a better place for this discussion. > Hey, it beats arguing about another "remove the fre

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)

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:30 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > I was lazy and didn't include a link, but I was really referencing - if > not exactly quoting - your own words from March: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/004014.html > > It seems your mi

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.

As a software author, and in order to best support my community, I should see security information about my own software as soon as possible. Thus, it has always been disquieting that Red Hat has an Enterprise product, the main differentiating feature of which is that they have a customer-only wall

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

Pam, I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived. For example, the BitMover license, which required that users connect to a logging server operated by BitMover Inc. to log their usage, was rejected. I'm not sa

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Cowan wrote: > I think that OSD #3 does exactly that. "The license must allow > modifications and derived works [...]" A license that even conditionally > forbids those activities is not, on my reading, an open source license. > But of course we are not tal

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

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM VanL wrote: > This is a completely fair point, and I apologize for the tone. > Well spoken, and accepted of course! > The CAL does require that a licensee make available the user's data to the > user, but it does not impose restrictions on how the data is used,

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

I concur with Richard. To the extent that the user data can be considered to be software, the license imposes terms upon software which is merely processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9 On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > >>*From:* License-discuss [mailto: > license-

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

Lothar sent me an interesting paper yesterday: Nobody Owns Data https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3123957 On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:22 PM Diane Peters wrote: > Perhaps useful as a point of reference: CC 4.0 ND >

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

It makes it a lot easier to state, and eventually enforce, performance-based terms (or Larry's "deployment" based terms), because you don't have to differentiate when something is performance or deployment vs. when it is private modification. I've never seen protection of private modification as e

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.

. You were not any part of the >> discussion and will remain not a part. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bruce >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:09 PM Luis Villa wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <

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

My opinion has been that gift-style licensing makes you an unpaid, and unappreciated, employee of big companies. The GPL and AGPL terms are hardly an unfair expectation of those folks. Having had my software installed in literally all lines of network-connected consumer devices, I feel that complia

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.Capital.

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

The Oracle case was complicated, and is a series of courts reversing courts and courts reversing juries, and I'm not sure you can express it so simply in one sentence. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > On 7/3/2019 3:09 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I have no problem with d

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

Van, The by-laws give OSI a great deal of latitude to determine what it wishes to do, and how. I can think of very many ways in which it might help attorneys craft Open Source licenses, for example by running a training program. It is certainly not required to select any particular method. Th

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

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API > (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does > not fit this definition [of a derivative work]. In my naivete, I would have thought that the

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   >