'd prefer not having to
curate my own list if possible. I'd also like to assign each of these
a unique name similar to SPDX. I suppose getting the blackduck
database would be an excellent option, but I imagine that data might
be proprietary, and I'd like to consume a
elated to
this "in the wild" or if this is merely a preventative change to
reduce that possibility.
(In fact if anyone has experienced trademark issues as a result of
Apache V2, please let us all know.)
Thanks,
James
___
The opinions expres
ear that the licenses are not OSI-approved.
This is a really brilliant proposal that I think we should accept. It
would help with license proliferation, and it would probably help
prove that we only need five licenses for new works: MIT, ALv2,
[A|L]GPLv3+.
Thanks,
James
or user access is under
> proprietary licence.
Is it dually-licensed (ie: available under two different licenses) or
is part of it under ALv2 and part under proprietary?
Probably best to send us the GH link.
Cheers,
James
>
> Can someone claim a software to be an open source by restri
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:43 PM VanL wrote:
>
> Hi Christine,
>
> there are businesses and business plan that are fully aligned with the goals
> of the community.
Which ones?
Thanks,
James
___
License-discuss mailing list
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:17 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> 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 "str
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:06 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss
wrote:
>
> 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 fr
;s pretty obvious: requiring
copyleft, it usually ensures (modulo above question) that one entity
can't take the work proprietary. Wikipedia is a similar example where
the choice of license was chosen to benefit the commons.
Thanks,
James
___
Lic
icense as well. In this case CC0:
https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blob/master/CC0
HTH
James
PS: Cheap plug: teaching lawyers git skills:
https://github.com/purpleidea/legal-hackers
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.op
n
source stuff is being done on a proprietary platform-- I'd like to
avoid that, but for popularity reasons, I've stayed for now.
Cheers,
James
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
rience IMO which breeds doubt. If someone wants to
make a complaint, it should be public so that they are accountable for
it as well, so that it's only used when it's really necessary.
Thanks,
James
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
