Re: [License-discuss] Open Source license question

On 09/04/2024 14:30, John Sullivan wrote: You say "commercial" here but I think you mean "proprietary" right? Since the GPL says commercial as in "for a fee" redistribution is allowed. Well corrected, although it all goes towards the point that "paid version" is too vague.

Re: [License-discuss] Open Source license question

On 07/04/2024 04:37, Justin Clift wrote:     -   Unless provided with a written agreement, no persons are permitted to redistribute another paid version of CapRover. "paid version" needs defining. Any requirement that all distribution be free of charge would be invalid. Furthermore, any rest

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

On 14/03/2024 08:54, Shuji Sado wrote: Permission to reproduce, modify, and distribute This isn't safe, as some countries have more economic rights than this. E.g. I think, for the UK, one would need to add "Use" in relation to a computer program. You need to be a "lawful user before you can

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

On 14/03/2024 09:07, Shuji Sado wrote: "the author shall not exercise moral rights. I thought the reason behind the EU having moral rights was to create rights that could not be contracted out of. For example, noting that computer programs are exempt, the original author of a work (not done

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

On 14/03/2024 09:07, Shuji Sado wrote: ~~~ Japanese Copyright law Article 20(1) The author of a work has the right to preserve the integrity of that work and its title, and is not to be made to suffer any alteration, cut, or other modification thereto that is contrary to the author's intention.

Re: [License-discuss] Evaluating the Enforceability of a License Should Not be a Criteria for OSI License Review

On 26/10/2023 11:16, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: In my experience, the enforceability of a license is derived from the ability to ensure that downstream distributors comply with the license's obligations, and not from the ability of the licensor to grant permission to make use of the licensed soft

Re: [License-discuss] Asking Eligibility to apply license for Python Package

On 05/09/2023 11:51, CS with BHARGAB wrote: Hello, I have written a python package which is globally accessible from pypi.org . you can visit the python package by the following link: https://pypi.org/project/chi-final/ I want to know if

Re: [License-discuss] Reconsidering the "unless required by applicable law" clauses on warranties and limitations of liability

On 18/02/2023 20:03, Brian Behlendorf wrote: That's not my premise. My premise is that if you can not hold me free from liability or warranty, I have the right to not allow you access to the other rights granted in my software license. This feels something like a field of endeavour restricti

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

On 21/12/2022 14:47, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote: But in fact it is not true: when entering into force, new regulations (like, i.e., the GDPR) apply to all running contracts, regardless of their date of formation. In addition, in the the But isn't the GDPR closer to crimi

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

On 21/12/2022 10:50, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote: So any idea of banning choice of law clauses will raise serious issues, at least in the EU. Laws can change. I wonder if, if choice of law is allowed, whether there should be a requirement to specify the point in time fr

Re: [License-discuss] OSI definition

On 18/01/2021 22:08, Gil Yehuda wrote: This license seems to be snagged by the anthropomorphism we tend to use when we talk about companies. It's more than an anthropomorphism. Companies are legal persons, and most commercial law that applies to human beings (legally: natural persons) also a

Re: [License-discuss] OSI definition

On 17/01/2021 00:05, Mat K. Witts wrote: employing more people than the license allows Open source licence cannot limit the number of people allowed. ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the O

Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

On 25/08/2020 18:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote: OSI be careful when trying to qualify what counts as a legal person I think you meant something like "legal expert", as "legal person" doesn't make sense in the English legal sense of the terms (an extension of the the concept of a natural person (an

Re: [License-discuss] Becoming Public Domain After X Years

On 22/11/2019 21:01, Martin L via License-discuss wrote: I was wondering if anyone had links/knowledge about licenses which, after X amount of time (say, 10 years), release the code into the public domain? My understanding is that, even in the USA, it is an open question as to whether you can

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

On 09/08/2019 15:57, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: Depending on what you mean "dual," Dual in the context of open source software generally means that you licence it under two alternative sets of terms and the licensee can chose which of those sets of terms to honour. Typically they

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion on new revision of Master-Console's Open Source Definitive License(MCopdl)

On 29/05/2019 13:12, Wayne A Rangel wrote: "Source" implies to the core files, the code used, documents and resources used in the product. This definition also applies to 'source code'. I think you need this document reviewing by a native English speaker. However the first issue I noted

Re: [License-discuss] Open source license with obligation to display an attribution?

On 04/12/2018 07:07, simon@csiro.au wrote: Is there an open source license that also includes an obligation on the user to make public attribution of use of the software in a specific form? The original BSD licence had an advertising clause, but advertising clauses are now considered a b

Re: [License-discuss] OSL and obfuscated code

On 21/11/2018 19:35, Mike Linksvayer wrote: I wonder whether INFOCERT's request is justifiable? I imagine they think obfuscated code is less likely to be modified, any modification potentially making the software non-compliant with the regulation, risking INFOCERT's reputation? Why isn't it g

Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4

On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. Mármol wrote: That´s to say, regardless of the quantities of commercial resellers that it could be in a "distribution binary product´s chain" the original distributor/manufacturer would be the party that in practical terms would provide "the source code offer" to t

Re: [License-discuss] Source code availability after end of life

On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbjørn Vynne wrote: For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software, can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the source available even though no more products are shipped or serviced. Please explain what is not clear in the