do they do?
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
Licen
code
contributions, they want money. Copyleft is not a business model.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Sourc
ey to answer this
question, and they will likely tell you "it depends".
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open So
7;t assess whether this is true or not.
Regardless, there are a LOT of licenses that don't have a specific
provision for moral rights. Most of them, really. Blue Oak isn't special.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are tho
t terms
Suggest: External Dependency?
Out of those, Venue and Choice of Law feel like they could be
consolidated. And we'll use "conflict resolution" if it's there, but if
it's not we won't miss it.
--
Josh Berkus
___
T
n
harder to enforce it. It takes a whole project infrastructure, and a
lot more text.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements
Pam,
Also, Kevin has a script to copy all the licenses to Github issues,
which could work for tagging them.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative
in
the long list of descriptive tags. Could we do a two-part display on
the website to make sure that doesn't happen?
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Sour
ented better licensing is not.
There is absolutely no reason to be gratuitously rude.
Daniel, please be aware that Bruce does not speak for the OSI Board or
any body of the OSI.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the s
n, and you
should, given your company's mission. It just won't be open source.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by
etary and
domain-restricted licenses as well, as long as those permit
redistribution of source. While that's not necessarily a blocker to
approval, you might want to think through the implications.
6. It seems weird to call the first release of a new license "3.0".
--
Josh Berku
earch project is seperate from any editorials that OSI might
publish, and should be.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
7;ve never been sure what it's actually used for.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative
uldn't enjoy any of the APL's patent claim
protections. And, if you were a downstream recipient of the code, how
would you know what license you were receiving it under?
Am I missing something here?
[1]: https://crates.io/crates/syn
--
Josh Berkus
__
x27;s intent doesn't matter if they weren't successful.
We also regularly have licenses submitted that aren't written with legal
advice and are so poorly drafted that they would not be enforceable
anywhere at all. Do you really think that the OSI sho
Reminder: if you are interested in this committee, the application
closes in 6 days.
On 6/26/23 15:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
Fellow licensing enthusiasts:
As some of you know, OSI currently has a legal intern reviewing all of
our data on approved licenses on our website and elsewhere. In some
On 6/26/23 16:07, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
It appears that this form needs to have its permissions opened up to allow
people who are not members of the OSI group in Google Workspace to see it :-)
Thank you! Fixed, I think.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The
ntial discussions.
Three to six committee members will be selected by the Board.
[1] Charter:
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working-Groups-Incubator-Projects/License%20Consistency%20Working%20Group/
--
Josh Berkus
Board, OSI
___
The opinions express
cense expiration committee". Happy
to help with that.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative wi
ns of LinShare and LinShare software Programs is mandatory notwhistanding any
other terms and conditions.
... this is the most burdensome example of an attribution notice I've
ever seen. Feels like it's a violation of 10, and possibly 6 or 8 as
well. Thoughts?
--
Josh Berkus
__
to come back
to the main project, they just need to be open source somewhere, which
can just be a matter of creating their own public GH/GL repo.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessa
ur name). This works especially well if you
distribute your software via a version-control system that publishes
every modification as metadata (e.g., GitHub).
Yes ... a lot of folks simply have a NOTICES file that links to the
reflog, which after all has a full list of chang
as 0BSD, but may
> still be used by some under its original submission name." or something like
> that.
Yes, and it should still be indexed as the FPL, in case someone wants to
look that up.
Which is ... kinda the situation we already have.
--
Josh Berkus
___
o the approval name.
Yeah, I'm OK with listing both names, but the idea that we'd remove the
original approval name, that some people are using, is a non-starter.
The current listing is 100% appropriate given the history of the
license, Rob's hyperbole and ill-
for whatever they wish.
Clever, Gil.
I was wondering about that as well. At best, the license would prevent
a corporation from appearing on the copyright of derivative versions.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of th
source license,
it's a "shared source" license.
Ultimately, tacking the GDPR onto a license is just another "unrelated
conditions" license, and thus a clear violation of OSD5/6. We have OSD5
and 6 for good reasons.
--
Josh Berkus
___
rt requiring submitters to identify themselves, although
I'd like to include in that identifications that might be internet-based
rather than government-issued (e.g. "I'm 'onehacker' on Gitlab, you can
see my projects here").
--
Josh Berkus
__
>
> Amazon’s preferred permissive license is Apache 2.0. In part because it
> doesn’t have this “dozens and dozens of pointless minor variants” problem.
For such a short license, BSD has an awful lot of variations.
Gotta be the bikeshed problem.
--
Jo
On 7/28/20 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is just a rebranding of the Commons Clause. It is not
>> OSI-compliant, and cannot be made OSI-compliant.
> The web page says this:
I was looking at the n8n project, which is licensed under the Commons
Clause.
why open
source is superior to the shareware model, but that seems like
well-trodden ground.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statem
On 5/13/20 11:08 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> Mark, LMK if you need help starting the process to get it OSI-certified.
I don't think we need anything else, we're already going over it on
license-review.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expr
ause the intent is that our customers can remix it into their own
> applications with zero concern about the labor of maintaining attribution.
>
> I don't know if that counts as "in the wild" enough.
It's sufficient. Just wanted to make su
tion:
Is there significant use of MIT-0 in the field?
I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it
as "technically OSS but not really needed". But if projects are using
it, then approve it as a "redundant" license.
--
Josh Berkus
the other catergory words we've
chosen work in that fasion.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initia
d the badgeware clause with attribution language
more similar to the GPLv3. Which would kinda make it the "acceptable
BSD 4-clause".
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the
I haven't contacted him myself becase I think and OSI board member
should do that.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
nal author, but we don't need his permission.
The license is public domain.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open So
dn't have significant use anymore.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
the case of licenses in
> the badgeware category, though).
Yeah, and honestly having a license listed as "deprecated" is as
effective as actual removal for purposed of getting people to NOT draft
new licenses based on it.
--
Josh Berkus
___
e the AAL 2.0, which would fix
the badgeware clause, replacing it with a proper attribution clause.
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Offici
nse removal committee, having considered all
> feedback it has received, and taken into account potential newly found
> projects where license is in use, can decide to remove the license from
> the list of approved licenses.
>
> - Removed licenses will be listed on a separate page on
ion to other license authors to write noncompliant
licenses. Deprecated licenses need to be removed in some reasonable
timeline, such as 6-12 months.
Unless you're saying that "several years" is the alternative if we don't
bother to try to track down any users/authors? If that
effectively prevents
downstream developers from ever removing the GUI from the program, or
from running it on an embedded system (thus violating OSD6 and/or OSD10).
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessar
Yeah, we used to apparently have the policy that "if nobody strenuously
objects, the license passes".
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. O
pended and nonreusable licenses".
--
Josh Berkus
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.or
the first part of #4 (or the
> details of #6).
oooh, nice summary. A very succinct way of putting the issue.
If you don't blog this, I'm gonna borrow it.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.or
the conversation.
There isn't an OSD-discuss list. This is it.
That's one reason why I would be thrilled to see OSI move to Discourse
or a similar platform; I think it would really help us separate
discussions better.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss is where we discuss (among other things) what it means
to be Open Source, up to, and including, revisions of the OSD (OSD 8/9,
I have my eyes on you). If you want a list where the OSD text is
immutable, then that's license-review.
--
Josh Berkus
On 3/11/20 1:09 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:42 AM Josh Berkus <mailto:j...@berkus.org>> wrote:
>
> Coraline showed *tremendous* patience with a list discussion not exactly
> marked by good faith or good manners on the part of at least
f that is based on history. And since a lot of that
history happened in 1995-2004, it's ancient history to a lot of people.
So I'm gonna work on explaining why those clauses exist, and why they
are still relevant.
--
Josh Berkus
___
Li
On 3/11/20 11:36 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2020 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote:
>>>> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an
>>>> unpassable license on our website.
>>&
plain *why* the various clauses of the OSD exist, and not just
do "we're experienced and we know what we're doing". Examples of
unpassable licenses *with an explanation of why they are unpassable*
would help.
For the vaccine license, I think I&
ts. License-discuss is for thought experiments.
>
> There was also something similar submitted recently IIRC; the Vaccine License
> was it?
>
I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an
unpassable license on our website.
--
Josh Berkus
_
beneath the dignity of a senior manager. If
nothing else, it reflects poorly on your employer.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
ly,
violations of the CoC.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
rammers working on from-scratch projects in
isolation, even though that's rarely the case. In fact, I'd say that
case is so exceptional that it's not worth talking about.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discus
a Code of Conduct. Violating *that* is the way to
determine who is an outsider (or at least can no longer post to the list).
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
Further, not one of ESR's points is original or even original to this
list. In his absence, not one of the ideas he so "colorfully" expressed
will be lost. In the meantime, we're missing the input of so many people
who will not par
seem to think so. If you want a "safe space" where only
people you agree with can speak, it's cheap and easy to create your own
mailing list, and I wish you the joy of it.
--
Josh Berkus
___
License-discuss mailing list
59 matches
Mail list logo
