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

Mike Milinkovich wrote: “Many lawyers don't like them. In my experience there were lots of lawyers who found the EPL-1.0 USA-centric because of its choice of law provision and avoided it as a result. E.g. why would a German automaker want to contribute code under a license that stipulates US law

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

/AFL section 11.] /Larry Lawrence Rosen 707-478-8932 ___ 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

[License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

dmit, I do not profess to be an authority on German or French licenses capable to telling them to change their provisions. Brad and the OSI have ONLY the authority to determine whether licenses satisfy the Open Source Definition AND NOTHING MORE. /Larry Lawre

Re: [License-discuss] Question about AGPLv3 with a Plugin Exception

ed with it, since you can't grant that same additional permission on the third-party code you are using I think that is too strong a statement. Even AGPL code can be combined with other code without impacting the AGPL license. The word "combined" is overbroad. /Larry Lawrence Ros

Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?

.0. They remain my not-so-humble attempt to create licenses that would generally please the community, but asking lawyers and open source advocates to converge on a consensus is impossible. McCoy: That is why I seldom comment on this list. As I got older I began to better appreciate futility. /

Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?

McCoy is correct. Versions of AFL and OSL **prior to version 3.0** are no longer valid. Please remove those earlier versions. /Larry Lawrence Rosen 707-478-8932 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 -Original Message- From: License-discuss On Behalf Of McCoy Smith Sent: Tuesday

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

gal conclusion. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> On 6/8/2021 9:02 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Hi Pam, I’m moving this to license-d

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> On 6/8/2021 4:49 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Simon, I’ve never been to Thailand nor reviewed its software laws. But in the US, if you distribute open source software that violat

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] request for review of the 3D Slicer License

ppropriate for discussion on the license-discuss, not license-review, list. FWIW, I still think these sorts of clauses are unnecessary, although unnecessary clauses aren’t themselves a violation of the OSD (if they were, well, the list would be a lot smaller 😊). From: Lawrence Rosen

[License-discuss] Google v. Oracle

. /Larry Lawrence Rosen 707-478-8932 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 ___ 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

[License-discuss] Google wins

Google just won against Oracle in the dispute over Java code. The main argument was that APIs are "fair use." /Larry Lawrence Rosen ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the O

[License-discuss] Legal use of software

J. Ritchey wrote: Because the license is designed to be short, it doesn't define terms (eg: "lawful"). Instead it binds to a jurisdiction to set precedence for how a term may be interpreted. For example the Copyright Act itself uses the terms lawful, unlawful, and lawfully. So does the Criminal Co

[License-discuss] FRAND and licensing patents under OWFa 1.0

ense such as the one that the UK court took 59 pages to litigate. /Larry Lawrence Rosen 707-478-8932 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> LinkedIn: Lawrence Rosen ___ The opinions expr

Re: [License-discuss] A modest proposal to reduce the number of BSD licenses

Russ Nelson wrote: > The problem has always been that open source project accumulate licensors and > patches in equal number, and in theory to relicense something requires assent > from all licensors. I'm saying that we don't have to worry about them because > they are suffering no harm because

[License-discuss] The value of open source

Below is the acknowledgement from an important paper published today by CERN. “Observation of structure in the J/ψ-pair mass spectrum .“ Don’t bother reading the paper; like most physics results it is generally incomprehensible to laypersons. But please see th

Re: [License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses

McCoy Smith described the category: > 3. Other/Miscellaneous licenses [These licenses do not fall neatly into any category.] Remind me: What does this mean to a licensor or licensee? Does it help license selection or was it merely a politically-correct classification for "license proliferation" re

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

Gil Yehuda wrote: * But am I responsible for your actions? Was I a knowing and willing participant? Did I fail to act in a reasonable manner to stop the crime? I'm sure there are lots of great questions that lawyers here can expound upon. But open source licenses have limitations of warra

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

I'm tired of everyone forgetting OSL 3.0, as if AGPL is the only license worth considering. Licensing bigots! /Larry -Original Message- From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Florian Weimer Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:19 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: [License-disc

[License-discuss] GDPR/CCPA and CAL

I would appreciate a more complete answer to Brian's question. GDPR and CCPA deal with "personal information" under statutory authority in various jurisdictions. Neither relies on copyright law to control access to or use of personal information. So is CAL relying only on contractual law stated in

[License-discuss] ZFS Kernel Code on Linux

FYI. /Larry Rosen https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-avoid-oracles-zfs-kernel-code-o n-linux-until-litigious-larry-signs-off/ ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinf

[License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

FYI. /Larry https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/oracle-copied-amazons-api-was-th at-copyright-infringement/ This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. ___ License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] OSL, Apache and PrestaShop

reluctance even for non-lawyers to confirm that on license-discuss@. Both licenses are perfectly clear that only derivative works of OSL must be released under the OSL, and ASL doesn't care at all. Best regards, Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.r

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Coherent Open Source - Getting underway next Friday

g the acceptability of the GPL, although I still don't like your criticizing all the other good open source licenses that innovative attorneys create. /Larry This email is licensed under <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. From: Lawr

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Coherent Open Source - Getting underway next Friday

Bruce, your opinions are not shared by me and many others. I do not think it would be useful to repeat here my frequent arguments against your view. Fortunately, your vote is minimal. By way of contrast, I appreciate Gil's views. FSF needs to change its opinions about license interworking b

Re: [License-discuss] The Right of Display

John Cowan wrote: > But suppose I write and send you a program that, when used as a web server, > transmits the necessary HTML+CSS to display on a standard browser a pattern > of highly colored blobs that I consider artistic, such that if I painted this > same pattern of blobs it would clearly

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] The Right of Display

08 PM To: license-rev...@lists.opensource.org; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] The Right of Display We may have veered to a point where no one is interested as this relates to the CAL, so I'm moving the discussion to the license-disc

[License-discuss] Fair Use

3, 2019 4:34 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License On 8/23/2019 1:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Roger Fujii wrote: > Now I'm confused.Are you saying there is no "fair use" when the target is

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

d be) of no effect. We're stuck with the law as courts interpret it. For current example, look at the exception we seek for copyright of APIs Let us pray /Larry From: Russell McOrmond Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 6:01 AM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

alf Of Roger Fujii Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:17 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License On 8/21/2019 7:33 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

Russell, what you said is not true in the United States. I dare not speak to Canadian law. Russell wrote: * What is the purpose of the copying or modification of the work. If the modifying is for making software compatible with other software, that is already an enumerated exception in Ca

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, for her own private purposes? Or, in your view, is at least a minimal license re

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

Bruce Perens wrote: > And doesn't this way of stating it make it very clear it's in contravention > of OSD #6? It would certainly be a field of endeavor to run the program for > anyone but yourself, or for anything but a private purpose. Bruce, this seems to be a real stretch about "field of

[License-discuss] New GDPR, California Privacy Penalties Expected

FYI: The California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") will go into effect on January 1, 2020. /Larry This email is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-d

Re: [License-discuss] The CAL is NOT unilateral because...

eral license agreement. I will step in to say that Alexander is wrong. He should please take his legal theories to court rather than bury this discussion list in such legal silliness. Citing court cases in this forum proves nothing. Please no longer answer him here. /Larry Lawrence Ros

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Of course that isn't my opinion. Only reciprocal licenses that purport to restrict linking.  Larry Sent from my phone. Original message From: VanL Date: 7/8/19 1:48 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Lawrence Rosen , license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-di

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Hi Pam, I want to credit you for being far more familiar than I am with the pleadings in the Oracle v. Google case between those two huge software vendors. You are a more competent attorney than I at such things. Perhaps, as you suggest, the Supreme Court will take a narrow view of the issue

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

ue my license compliance business, which was worth about a Million dollars and allowed me to continue to devote most of my time to Open Source. Thanks Bruce On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 3:29 PM Russell McOrmond wrote: On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:44 PM Lawrence Rosen mailto:lr

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Hi Pam, Pam Chestek wrote this on 6/30/2019: > The [Oracle v. Google] case is about whether it was lawful to copy portions > of software to enhance the ease of development of software for an entirely > different software ecosystem. What is the relevance (or indeed, what is the definition

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Kevin Fleming wrote: > As a software developer I have a hard time accepting that designing an API is > not a 'creative' process There are many other examples of API design > decisions which make the API 'hard to use properly' or 'easy to use > improperly' and a well-designed API is anticipat

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

est is used to determine whether elements of a computer program have been copied by comparing the protectable elements of two programs. From: Luis Villa Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 6:20 AM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Copyright

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

e v. Oracle is a different factual situation than what everyone seems to be concerned about. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> On 6/30

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Thank you again Patrice-Emanuel, and thanks also to the EU for a much clearer explanation of functional software interfaces ("APIs") than the brief but equally relevant provision in 17 USC 102(b). I hope the US Supreme Court is as clear in its decision in the Oracle v. Google case. OSI shou

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote: > ... this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion. Bruce Perens wrote: > I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft". I believe that Patrice-Emmanuel is correct for U.S. copyright law also. Unlike Bruce, I don't believe tha

[License-discuss] Discourse email

[Changing the subject!] Rick Moen wrote to Luis Villa about Discourse: > I found it lastingly strange to be targeted by some very strange personal rhetoric from you for saying that -- and find it suspicious that you, the main person lobbying for migration away from SMTP/mailing lists to an ins

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

ing article useful. I admit to the strangeness of me recommending GPLv3, but I do try to be intellectually honest about such things. /Larry ** "Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3" by Lawrence Rosen (revised 9/28/2016) There are many ways to distribute sof

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Richard Fontana wrote: > FWIW the Fedora Project has identified OSI-approved licenses it believes do not meet the Free Software Definition (most of these, but I think not all, are based on the FSF's own judgments). FWIW, I am intentionally NOT a member of FSF nor a supporter of their license j

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Richard Fontana wrote: > Larry Rosen, of all people, used the term "software freedom" in the subtitle of his influential early 2000s book on open source licensing, not long after the period of his own involvement in the OSI and prior to the founding of SFLC. Richard, thank you for the reminder.

[License-discuss] Open source commons

hat John says, you can aggregate the one open source commons created by MOST copyleft (and permissive) licenses to your heart's content without fear. Bravo for open source! Best, /Larry From: John Cowan Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 8:27 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Cc:

Re: [License-discuss] License licenses

Here is OSL 3.0 § 16: 16) Modification of This License. This License is Copyright © 2005 Lawrence Rosen. Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or communicate this License without modification. Nothing in this License permits You to modify this License as applied to the Original Work or

[License-discuss] A quotation from a book I'm reading

"... a really new field of experience will always lead to crystallization of a new system of scientific concepts and laws ... when faced with essentially new intellectual challenges, we continually follow the example of Columbus who possessed the courage to leave the known world in almost insane ho

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Pam, I said this to Bruce and the list: "Yes, OSI must do more to educate the public, but your remarks make our community stupid." This is not about Bruce, whom I clearly stated I respect still. I have had a long and mostly positive relationship with him over the years. It is about his oft-r

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Bruce Perens wrote: > The fact is, you can do essentially all Open Source with three licenses, and > two of them are very short. They are all compatible with each other, they all > allow a passive user to do what they want without having a lawyer, and they > are all protective of the developer

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:24 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI On 5/25/2019 11:14 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: As for list moderation, I believe that this

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Bruce, I am disappointed to hear your complaint about the recent changes to the OSI license discussion and review process. I don't see that as an offense to you. I am sorry you are taking it so poorly. But now, perhaps, you can appreciate my disappointment when I first learned, several mont

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

ally to address that problem. Perhaps clever lawyers can address clever workarounds? We know the BSD doesn't even try to address them. Best, /Larry From: Bruce Perens Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:44 AM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote: > . If a program has functionality covered by a patent owned by a completely > unrelated 3rd party, the program's license doesn't give all the Patent rights > a user needs. At best, you could claim that the program's license gives all > the Patent rights

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Rick Moen wrote: > Today, I declare that a codebase is 2-clause BSD licensed. As you have the obvious right to do. But as someone recently reminded me, and I remind this list, the OSI charter includes the obligation to "educate the public about open source." And so OSI should educate you

Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]

Bruce Perens wrote: > I do think it is the case that the discussion became repetitious. As one commenter who has been repetitious for nearly 20 years here, I apologize for saying things that I still believe but that OSI and you, Bruce, seem often to ignore. I repeat myself below in random or

[License-discuss] Contemplating the licensing issues of server applications

[Former subject was: "Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)"] Kyle Mitchell said: > As for me, I've lost confidence in this body's ability to make rigorous decisions, or even facilitate focused debate, on any remotely interesting new copyleft license.

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

.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely. From: Bruce Perens Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:04 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL) On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:02

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

Bruce Perens wrote: > Unfortunately, a lot of what the companies want to do can't be achieved as > Open Source, and it is best that all sides understand that and go on. Or understand and accept that Open Source Software is more than the GPL and recommend other approved open source licenses i

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

lem for networked software. The letters "GPL" aren't the entire answer. /Larry From: Bruce Perens Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 12:30 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and

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

Gil Yehuda wrote: > I wondered why we don't have an A/LGPL (or A/MPL, A/EPL) that addresses the > "non-conveyed software gap" but also limits the scope of copyleft to the work > itself. We do. OSL 3.0. In all other respects, I agree with Gil's email. > it feels like kissing with eyes

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

but not with words or phrases that are vague and too broad. They should say precisely what they mean, and what apparently you also mean. :-) /Larry From: Bruce Perens Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:17 PM To: Lawrence Rosen Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [

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

Perens Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:10 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL) Oh, I could have so much fun with a question like that. But getting to the one about licenses: People who write

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

Nick Weinstock proposed: > A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way to > clarify this section. Bruce Perens wrote: > Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier for > you to do things they don't want you to do. Bruce, I'm trying to p

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

and laws should say exactly what they mean. 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 SS

Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source

Scott Peterson wrote: > “Intimate” is the most useful term we know to describe the kind of convoluted > interaction and deep knowledge that suggests that one part is specifically > designed to require another part. What is the relevance of "convoluted interaction" and "deep knowledge," and w

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

ion on the part of the licensee. I had never thought about it this way, but I can definitely see how someone could arrive at that conclusion, and this seems to align with Florian's concern. On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM Florian Weimer mailto:f...@deneb.enyo.de> > wrote: > > * Lawren

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

but I can definitely see how someone could arrive at that conclusion, and this seems to align with Florian's concern. On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM Florian Weimer mailto:f...@deneb.enyo.de> > wrote: > > * Lawrence Rosen: > > > But let us nevertheless agree on a pragmati

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Works. But if it's a right you currently have, then telling you to give up that right in order to get the license is more like consideration. You currently have the right to make a Parody (as fair use), so if the license says you waive your right to make a Parody that would be consider

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

ude CPOL, because it requires that a distributing licensee must ensure that recipients agree to the license, which could be another “other consideration.” -Nick From: Lawrence Rosen Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Richard Fontana wrote: > I can easily come up with hypothetical licenses that would seem not to fail a highly literalist reading of the OSD, but which historically would never have been *treated* as conforming to the OSD, because of an obvious failure of the license to provide software freedom as

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Bruce Perens wrote: > It's nice that the purpose is acknowledged to be "software freedom". However, > people wanting a programatic definition of that will be disappointed. I agree. You did much cleaner defining job with the OSD, and thanks for that! But let us nevertheless agree on a prag

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

Jim Jagielski asked: > I am not exactly sure how the wants, needs, and desires of GOSS are different > from the entire FOSS community in general... or why it should be accorded > "special" treatment or consideration. The needs of "Government" OSS are very much like the needs of "Free" OSS wi

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

Chris Lamb suggest the adoption of GPLv3 with the following appendage: > If you are happy with SimonWidgets, please express that by retaining the references to SimonCorp. This does not affect your rights under the GPLv3+. "Happiness" is typically not enforceable as a license condition. (You

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

Bruce Perens wrote: > There is no problem if it's a request rather than a requirement. One can hope > that scientific ethics applies Bruce, I think you go too far. A request to be ethical isn't enough. It is, however, reasonable to demand this: Licensee must display the name and sour

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

OSD #10 prevents certain kinds of badgeware licenses: 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of

Re: [License-discuss] OSL and obfuscated code

he Open Source Definition clause 2." Best, /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) LinkedIn: LawrenceRosen 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 This email is licensed under <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by

Re: [License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD

A page at opensource.com defines "open source" as follows: The term "open source" refers to something people can modify and share because its design is publicly accessible. The term originated in the context of software development to designate a

Re: [License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD

D that deals with both copyrights and patents? /Larry From: Bruce Perens Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 7:02 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD Larry, Dave Rudin is in the group of supporte

Re: [License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD

Bruce, I support your efforts for open standards and royalty-free patents. However, a couple of warnings for OSI over-reach in these areas. You are not alone. Please incorporate our own previous efforts, with the support of attorneys from many software companies and foundations, toward thos

Re: [License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD

ts if > appropriate, but I don’t want to overstep if that’s not the intention. That is my hope. It would not be an overstep /Larry /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) LinkedIn: LawrenceRosen 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 954

Re: [License-discuss] was about Server-Side license but is about copyleft....

Cowan Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 2:37 PM To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] was about Server-Side license but is about copyleft.... On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:33 PM Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

[License-discuss] was about Server-Side license but is about copyleft....

[moving this to license-discuss@] Kyle Mitchell wrote: > If I build a dental records management application with a GPLv2 file format > parser, wouldn't my application be "other software"? But that can't be > right. We must be making a mistake elsewhere. John Cowan responded: > My unde

[License-discuss] Open source software licenses and the OSD

The initial debate between RMS and the OSI founders was some confusing nonsense over socialism vs. capitalism (in technical lingo as software license language rather than politics). I was initially confused. I found myself in the capitalist tribe at OSI, although my socialist parents would have