On Fri, Apr 5, 2024, at 23:07, Chris B wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I am an open source project maintainer and I was referred to this mailing
> list recently as a good place to ask questions.
>
> I was recently told by a community member that I should not be using the term
> "Open Source" as it has le
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024, at 23:01, Marshall Lake wrote:
> Newbie questions ...
>
> I assume these already-available licenses are "umbrella" licenses and I
> can put my project under that license?
Nearly all OSI-approved licenses are suitable for any project and use by anyone
who wishes to use them.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, at 14:39, McCoy Smith wrote:
> This one has various basic drafting problems, for example the conditions of
> the license grant are strangely articulated (there's a condition on the
> copyright grant, a separate condition on all the grants, and no equivalent
> condition to t
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024, at 14:47, Alec Bloss wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to ask for comments/input on a license that I've been working on,
> prior to considering sending it for an official review. It's aim is to be as
> widely compatible with other open-source licenses without some of the
> com
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 19:47, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> The same makes sense in the question of enforceability. If the license
> is not able to grant the necessary rights because it is unenforceable,
> how can it grant the rights necessary to satisfy the OSD?
In my experience,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, at 19:16, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, at 18:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
> As such, the OSI Board is forming a committee, the License Consistency
> Working Group[1], to evaluate and recommend how inconsistent licenses,
> if any, be treated. If you are interested in contributing to this
> effort, please fill out this
On Sun, May 21, 2023, at 04:20, Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
> For a network server project, I currently use the AGPLv3 because
> network-copyleft is important to me. I never gave the Installation
> Information requirement much thought, but now there's interest from a
> hardware manufacturer to include
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023, at 16:10, ygrex908 via License-discuss wrote:
> "where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by
> such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
> alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which
> such Cont
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:08 AM Bryan Masterson
wrote:
> Users come to my site, which includes jQuery and the widget - both are in the
> browser source, and therefore have their licence data displayed, but the
> modules, and the OS, and the DB software are never actually distributed
>
> So
Please keep in mind that if your application incorporates or relies
upon any other code (to which you do not hold the copyrights) that is
also licensed under the AGPL, you cannot grant an exception (really,
an 'additional permission') on your code which is combined with it,
since you can't grant th
I don't understand how the licenses could no longer be 'valid', unless
some sort of law or other external factor has made them so. They may
be obsolete, superseded, not recommended for use by their
author/steward, etc., but their text is likely just as 'valid' today
as when they were published.
M
The Dejacode product (from NexB Inc.) has a large license database (at
least 1,300 of them), and while it is not open source I'm certain they
would be happy to share the database.
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:04 PM James wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does someone have a large database of software licenses and/
If it's of any value, my employer (Bloomberg) handles our trademarks
similarly, and would welcome this small change to the Apache license.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:26 PM Langley, Stuart
wrote:
>
> Thank you. The rationale is that in a company like ours (Disney in this
> case, but others obvious
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 8:13 PM Tenorgil wrote:
>
> Can you clarify this phrase
>
> You can basically do whatever you want, as long as you are not a company with
> shareholders employing lots of people
>
> What does it mean if “you” (presumably a person) is not a company (a legal
> concept). If
There are no OSI-approved licenses which fit this model, because the
model is not compliant with the OSD. The restriction on sale of copies
of the software, or services provided using the software, is is
conflict with OSD #6.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:54 AM Paulo Coghi - Coghi IT
wrote:
>
> Hello
at 6:46 AM Hillel Coren wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Adding an attribution (for example in the page footer) doesn't prevent a
> business from reselling the app, it just makes it less likely they'll want to.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with
the OSD (since that is explicitly discrimination against a specific
field of endeavor), and thus any license which provides that feature
is not OSD-compliant. The feature you are asking for is the same core
feature of the Commons
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:44 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
wrote:
> tl;dr: What about the classification "Source-available" is insufficient for
> the Ethical Source movement such that changing the OSD is seen as a benefit?
> Why not proceed developing and enhancing the Ethical Source movem
This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Russell McOrmond
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory lice
Hear hear! I recently had to grant an internal exception to allow
contributions to Vim because "The Vim License" is not an OSI-approved
license. I have no doubt that it would be approved were it to be
submitted, but it has not been as far as I can tell and is unlikely to
ever be.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2
I'd only make one small change.
Centralizing copyright *licensing* in a single entity enables those
(and additional) business models. I haven't come across many instances
outside of the FSF where contributors are asked to assign their
copyrights to the single entity, generally they are only asked
This is not 'missing' from the OSI website; it's not the OSI's place to
provide legal advice about compliance with open source licenses. Legal
advice needs to be provided by a person trained in that profession who has
agreed to provide such advice to you or your company, typically under some
sort o
No, usage restrictions are incompatible with the Open Source
Definition. If the software has such restrictions it cannot be called
'open source'.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. Parts of
> the s
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:34 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> My impression is that AGPL has gained a reputation of a GPL version
> that enables “open core” business models, and this is why most people
> choose it. The FUD it creates for non-networked AGPL code appears to
> be a welcome side effect,
There is, but it's really off topic for the Open Source Initiative's
license discussion list, since the license in question would be very
from compliant with the OSD :-)
Actually, now that I read your question more closely, the answer to #2
is probably 'no'. If someone authors a contribution to yo
In my previous job we had a similar discussion related to software
which provides connectivity to clients using SIP (Session Initiation
Protocol). Even though it would be possible to provide an indication
of the AGPL license and URL to obtain the source code during SIP
session negotiation, no SIP c
I would not use the word 'Contribute' in clause 2, but instead use the
word 'Publish'. 'Contribute' implies more than just publication, at
least in common usage in the open source world. In addition, there is
no need to specify "to the public" in the requirement of applying this
license to changes;
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:57 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
It is an answer to the question of who the user of software is, FLOSS
or otherwise. When you talk about third parties interacting with
software which are not the author and not the person running the
software, you are talking about interact
As a software developer I have a hard time accepting that designing an
API is not a 'creative' process. If a library to provide a service
offers a function which needs a dozen pieces of information from its
caller, for example, making a choice between accepting all of those as
parameters to the fun
In our analysis at Bloomberg, we settled on the stricter
interpretation for the reasons hinted at by Bruce; we cannot guarantee
that *only* employees would be the ones accessing an internal instance
which may contain modifications; contractors, interns, vendor
representatives, etc. all may end up h
I don't mean to be abrasive here, but this thread demonstrates one of
the problems with the license-discuss/review mailing lists. It's not
unique to these lists, but solving it requires discipline.
Please try to stay on topic. Patrick started this thread with a very
straightforward request for lic
If the contributions were legitimately provided under an OSI-approved (or
similar) license, the license cannot be terminated for convenience. As a
result, anyone who received the code under that license can continue to
exercise all of the rights granted by the license (distribution,
modification, e
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:29 AM Rick Moen wrote:
> For clarification, are you talking about an arrangement where users
> would be required to enter a contractual relationship with Civilized
> Discourse Construction Kit, Inc. (CDCK aka 'discourse.org'), in order to
> participate in a Discourse for
I'll echo Luis' comment there; a 'well-defined' interface which has
only one implementation in existence anywhere in the known universe
may very well *not* be a licensing boundary.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan wrote:
>>
>>
>> O
One of my colleagues (who strongly prefers public domain dedications
and permissive licenses) recently indicated to me that in his opinion
as a software author, the obligation to distribute source code
qualified as 'consideration', since it requires a tangible (to some
degree) action on the part of
It's even simpler than that: what if someone finds a bit of the code
from the project (maybe a function or two, or an entire source file)
interesting and would like to use them in another project? What if
that other project doesn't have a user interface of any kind? Licenses
which require attributi
Having been down this road in a previous life, you should understand that
any attempt to 'validate' the installation of open source software will
eventually be defeated if the value of doing so is sufficiently high. In
this case, the person who wants to cheat on VAT collection/remittance would
find
For what it's worth, this is not just an academic exercise, nor am I
trying to waste the time of the fine people on this mailing list :-)
I've been requested to consider having my employer join the GPL
Cooperation Commitment, which effectively substitutes GPLv3's section
8 for the corresponding po
e-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:14 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] GPLv3 'permanent' license reinstatement?
>
> Section 8
Section 8 of the GPLv3 says this:
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under th
41 matches
Mail list logo
