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

* Bradley M. Kuhn: > 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 copyri

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

* Bradley M. Kuhn: > So, while Bruce and Pam are correct that the additional restriction(s) *if > valid* would lead to OSD-non-compliance, the AGPLv3 itself allows for > removal of the term and downstream return to standard license *without* the > problematic “further restrictions”. Those downstr

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

* Simon Phipps: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Andrew DeMarsh: >> >> >> >> >> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as >> >> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit

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

* Andrew DeMarsh: >> >> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as >> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such >> a requirement within its contribution process. >> > > I'm not sure that it would be required in the license text itself possibly >

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

* McCoy Smith: > Might it be time to require license submitters to actually identify > themselves, the organization they represent, and the name of the legal > person they worked with in creating and submitting the license? Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as DFSG-

Re: [License-discuss] Feedback about fair-code model

* Josh Berkus: > On 7/27/20 4:12 AM, Paulo Coghi - Coghi IT wrote: >> I recently discovered the fair-code model (https://faircode.io/) and I >> would like to know if it "fits" on any specific OSI approved license. > This is just a rebranding of the Commons Clause. It is not > OSI-compliant, and

Re: [License-discuss] Extending copyleft and out-of-the-box compliance

* Henrik Ingo: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:22 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that >> its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL. > > Note that the CAL specifically does not share

[License-discuss] Extending copyleft and out-of-the-box compliance

I was a bit surprised to learn that the CAL was accepted, given that its copyleft extensions have the same major problem as the AGPL. With that I do not mean the predominant use of the AGPL as a GPL variant for open-core business models, but that the AGPL requires to provide source code access ove

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

* Coraline Ada Ehmke: > Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is > based on a controversial social or political line? Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but: Some proponents of the GPL cite ethical reasons for implementing it. Copyleft is a controversial soci

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

* Russell McOrmond: > When you have a license agreement that discusses specific policy goals, and > doesn't grant a license if you carry out specific activities incompatible > with those goals, that isn't as quickly going to come up against the > non-discrimination core of software freedom. > > As

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

* Jim Jagielski: > Just say that, for example, we were having this discussion 10 years > ago, and that the elephant in the room, as persona-non-grata was > Microsoft. And say that there was s/w that was under such an ethical > license that prevented or severely restricted Microsoft from using > it

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

* Coraline Ada Ehmke: > The Hippocratic License, for example, does not discriminate against > any person or group, nor against any field of endeavor. It simply > states that the software may not be used in the commission of human > rights violations. This is not a liberal vs conservative position;

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

* Eric Schultz: > Description: > The idea for Dual Licensing for Justice comes from, you guessed it, dual > licensing and my own experience with the [license for the Houdini Project]( > https://github.com/houdiniproject/houdini/blob/master/LICENSE) which I help > lead. It's additionally inspired b

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

* Lawrence Rosen: > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/oracle-copied-amazons-api-was-th > at-copyright-infringement/ There is actually something that looks like a machine-readable interface description in the source code published by Amazon under the Apache license:

Re: [License-discuss] How to embed Apache v2 software?

* Antoine Thomas: > I am looking for advice about that: is it ok to embed some Apache software > this way and ship in OSL? You would have to ask your own lawyer about that. I'm not really familiar with the OSL. I don't expect any problems, but neither I'm qualified to analyze this situation, no

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

* B. Galliart: > If you are redistributing Amazon Corretto or any other OpenJDK as-is > without modification then you must do the following for everyone you > provide it to: > > (1) You must make them aware the product included Amazon Corretto and it > being covered under the terms of the GPLv2+CE

Re: [License-discuss] WordPress GPL software

* zak: > SPECIFICALLY, can someone else legally re-distribute (sell for less or give > away) the commercially available software (eg. themes and plugins), without > permission of the people who developer them? Are the modified, commercially > available themes, plugins, etc also GPL simply because

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

* John Cowan: > ELF format is divided into sections, and NOTE sections contain arbitrary > key-value pairs, where the value can be up to 2 GB. There seems to be no > utility for adding and removing these, but there is no problem in > principle: the ELF format is well documented, and a tool (calle

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

* Cem F. Karan: > This is actually starting to sound like an interesting/good idea. For > GPL compliance, you can't get much better than having the source > artifacts stored with the binary itself. It's not always possible to meet license notification requirements this way, unfortunately. > So,

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

* Cem F. Karan: > The ELF idea sounds interesting, but what about other binary > containers, e.g. mach-o? I don't know anything about mach-o, sorry. Well, I know that some of the files share their magic number with Java class files, but that's it. > That said, I for one would find it *highly* a

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

* Howard Chu: > That sounds like a fair summary, yes. Also, simply adding a > non-standard extension to our server to meet this license > requirement doesn't solve anything, if all LDAP clients aren't also > modified to recognize the extension, and that in particular seems an > unrealistic task.

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

* Howard Chu: > Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd > > 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral > > No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual > technology or style of interface. > > I note that the Affero GPL > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.

Re: [License-discuss] Fair Use

* Lawrence Rosen: > I wrote the following article for Linux Journal in 2002. Perhaps it > will help you? At least my article refers to some court cases where > legal opinions about fair use were expressed. > https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6080 This article does not explicitly mention that

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

* VanL: > What would everyone here think of the following exception to the CAL's > requirement to provide source code: > > 4.1.3. Coordinated Disclosure of Security Vulnerabilities > > You may delay providing the Source Code corresponding to a particular > modification to the Work for up to ninety

Re: [License-discuss] [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

* Bruce Perens: > Hi Florian, > > Thank you for reinforcing the difference between commercial and > proprietary, I was being lazy. Red Hat has pretty much always shipped OpenMotif in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, by the way. I don't (and wouldn't) know of any separate contractual requirements in thi

Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)

* Lawrence Rosen: > So, if our community can come up with an adequate definition of > "corresponding source" (or "intimacy") in the open source software context > to enforce the intent of our network services copyleft licenses, I'm all > ears. Neither SSPL nor AGPL currently meet that clarity requ

Re: [License-discuss] [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

* Bruce Perens: > Both Red Hat and Debian treat the terms of the distribution the same as > what they ask for in the software. When I last checked, Red Hat was using > the GPL Version 2 as a compilation license. Both wanted commercial > derivatives (Red Hat for their own use). So, this sort of res

Re: [License-discuss] "Channelized" Open Source Licensing

* Kyle Mitchell: > On 2018-10-20 09:10, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Peter Corless: >> >> > There seems to be a lot of buzz these days about licenses in the face of >> > cloud providers. >> > >> > I'd like to ask if anyone has considered, in

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

* Lawrence Rosen: > But let us nevertheless agree on a pragmatic definition of "open > source software". > “Open source software” means software actually distributed under terms > that grant a copyright and patent license from all contributors to the > software for every licensee to access and us

Re: [License-discuss] [Fedora-legal-list] The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

* Adam Jackson: > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 22:56 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely >> of historic interest. >> >> Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? >> >> <http://www.openg

[License-discuss] The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely of historic interest. Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? Debian clearly considered it non-DFSG-compliant, but I can't find a discussion why this was the case. In the

Re: [License-discuss] "Channelized" Open Source Licensing

* Peter Corless: > There seems to be a lot of buzz these days about licenses in the face of > cloud providers. > > I'd like to ask if anyone has considered, in this group, the concept of a > 'channelized' license? > > Party A: An OSS developer. > Party B: A cloud provider who hosting Party A's OSS