Re: [License-discuss] Query on "delayed open source" licensing

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 9:43 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Of course, license instruments that implement this strategy are not > themselves open source licenses. But we thought it was likely that > subscribers of this list would be familiar with examples of this > practice and might be able t

[License-discuss] McCoy Smith, GNOME, and RPI patent article

For anyone that hasn’t seen, an article posted today on the opensource.org blog of legal relevance. Thank you for your efforts McCoy! https://blog.opensource.org/gnome-patent-troll-stripped-of-patent-rights/ Cheers, Sean ___ The opinions expresse

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD... again.

>> I'd still weakly support the OSI retaining the first sentence in the >> note that says "Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of >> the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD >> family". I guess I'm seeing it as equivalent to calling MIT No >> Attributi

[License-discuss] Columbia S&T Law Review analysis of the OSI license-discuss mailing list

I just came across interesting commentary by D. Kappos and M. Harrington entitled “The Truth About OSS-FRAND: By All Indications, Compatible Models in Standards Settings” in Columbia’s STLR, Spring 2019: http://www.stlr.org/download/volumes/volume20/kappos.pdf

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > It’s mine, I crafted the work, so I have a certain amount of pride > in it (“Werksstolz” in German). However I’m standing on the shoulders > of giants (those who created Unix/BSD, MuseScore, the canon of the > fandom I’m writing fanfics

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

This exploration is a beautiful change of pace that I can get behind, so thanks Gil! I would offer a counter-perspective to your code ownership claim. I’ve authored and modified more than a million lines of code over decades across multiple projects, but I actually don’t perceive any of it as

Re: [License-discuss] [ANNOUNCE] Open source license compliance tooling meeting and hackathon on January 31st 2020 pre-FOSDEM fringe event in Bruxelles, Belgium

I’m not a party to this, but I’ll bite. > On Jan 15, 2020, at 1:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Philippe Ombredanne dixit: > >> See >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UphruKKAlsoUEidPCwTF2LCcHFnQkvQCQ9luTXfDupw/edit#heading=h.p2d7mni4lrcu > > Why do you use Google services for OSS work

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

> > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in > > and protection of culture and science in article 27 seem

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

Interesting data gathering... Perhaps this is something the guys at https://tldrlegal.com could help fill out or incorporate into their site? Seems entirely relevant to what they’re trying to do too. Cheers! Sean > On Aug 19, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Pamela Chestek > wrot

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

> You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in and > protection of culture and science in article 27 seems prett

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

> On Jul 9, 2019, at 8:07 AM, Russell McOrmond > wrote: > > This should not narrowly be with respect to approved licenses, but also > helping us lobby our domestic governments. This should include helping > ensure that human or computer interfaces are not covered by exclusive rights > such

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> Actually, what Thorsten Glaser said was: [snip] Not sure if quoting the entire e-mail is actually in disagreement with my characterization or just being pedantic, but I did not find it helpful. If anything, it’s a circular pitfall that I’m not going to repeat beyond to address the addition

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

, Rick Moen wrote: > > Quoting Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss > (license-discuss@lists.opensource.org): > >> Code under an Open Source license that is not publicly available might >> as well not be. > > Objection: Thorsten didn't speak of co

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 7, 2019, at 6:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > The reason I postulate one can absolutely not even come > anywhere close to checking whether a licence is in use > is that people don’t necessarily use public hosting > services, nor even all that well-known ones… Code under an Open Sour

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:45 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via > License-discuss wrote: >>>> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government >>>> works is not intended to hav

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: >> There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of >> support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pe

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to i

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>> "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works >> is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. >> Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are >> no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to Uni

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I don’t think the current OSD bad. It’s common to have interpretation > aids without needing to completely change the rules. Arguably that is, should be, or could be what https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> The greatest threat to FLOSS is not an absence of software, but government > regulation which contradicts the underlying policy goals of FLOSS. > > GOSS is different than other OSS not so much in that there is government > specific policies within copyright/patent and other laws granting exc

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

While I can appreciate the perspective some have that limitations to US copyright law are supposedly the prevailing concern with respect to IP, that’s simply demonstrably not the case with Gov’t works. The UAV example was evidently a distraction despite the “(with software..” disclaimer as the

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> Saying something from the Gov’t is “public domain” typically just means it > went through a public release process and there's no intention to assert > rights. I should clarify that I was referring to how public domain is used colloquially. Not asserting right or wrong, just that "public d

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> The work-around they are trying to use, of having contracts for the > distribution of creative works circumvent limitations and exceptions to > copyright, should be clearly understood as more harmful to the FLOSS > community than any amount of software released by any particular government

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> On May 28, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > <>>>From: License-discuss > [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:24 PM > >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government l

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> >>As he described it, goverment-written code is all public domain. > >>Unfortunately, the predominant effect of that public domain status for the > >>code was that government contractors would take the code, make trivial > >>modifications, and sell it back to >>the government under a proprie

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X > they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that > provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as > long as X minimally meets the OSD. This is wh

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X >> they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that >> provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as long >> as X minimally meets the OSD. > > This is where your logic fail

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

> On May 22, 2019, at 11:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > And so OSI should educate you that patents are sometimes very important, and > that the BSD license is currently not very useful in the open source > environment. It is risky! Has this actually been tested and/or demonstrated yet anyw

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

I believe the underlying problem is that the OSI as a community has been largely ineffective at reconciling patent right concerns with respect to the OSD. On the one side, you have people that seem to think of patents as this extrinsic issue, that a license (only) pertains to copyright concern

Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

> On May 19, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 2:37 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> It's my feeling that engagement (by non-submitters) on license-review >> has declined over time (and over a longer period of time if you >> consider the license approval portion

[License-discuss] OPEN Government Data Act signed into law in US

Relevant to the recent discussions about Government Open Source issues, the US federal government just signed the Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act into law as part of HR4174 (Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act). More details at https://www.dataco

Re: [License-discuss] FYI, opensource.dev released

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > > As you may or may not know, Google has been deploying new TLDs (.app, .dev , > .page, etc..) and my group wanted to plant a flag on opensource.dev to > explain in a non-google, very osd/osi centric way, what open source is. Take > a look