Re: [License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > Van, > > Sorry! I did not mean to show disrespect for your technical competence. > Did you specify anywhere which technical questions Van has been unable to answer? If so I missed it.

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Drafted weeks ago, but never sent; I think under the circumstances still worth sending] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:03 AM Pamela Chestek < pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote: > License Review Committee Recommendation: > My great thanks to Pam, the committee, and the full board for this excellen

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

[I'll grant, for purposes of discussion of OSI's standards generally, Bruce's use of 'encumber', but I think I agree with Van that with respect to CAL specifically 'encumber' is incorrect.] On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:29 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wro

Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > > >> 3.*A license that requires data portability*. >> Section 2.3(b) obliges the user of a software to “provide to any third >> party with which you have an enforceable leg

[License-discuss] How global do licenses have to be? [was Re: Copyright on APIs]

tl;dr: our existing licenses are maybe not as global as we'd like to pretend; feels like that has implications for future license approvals (and maybe CAL) but I'm not sure what those implications are/should be. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:33 AM VanL wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 5:34 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > 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

Re: [License-discuss] popularity, usage, re-review of old licenses [was Re: Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:47 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 6/3/2019 7:13 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > > for basic "is it used by any modern-ish software at all" those could > > give you a pretty good start. > > It might reduce some of the perceived risks with chan

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

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:47 AM Rick Moen wrote: By the way, Luis, has OSI ever _really_ advised newcomers to 'read the > archives'? Certainly, speaking for myself, *I'd* never so recommend, > for multiple reasons including that just never working. > People who have asked questions of the list

[License-discuss] popularity, usage, re-review of old licenses [was Re: Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 6/3/2019 11:31 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > If new findings occur with currently-approved licences that are not making it > completely unusable, they ought to be kept, perhaps in a “grandfathered, > problematic, actively derecommended f

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

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:33 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > Hi Luis, > > Thanks for the comments. Speaking entirely for myself here, I agree with > you. I hope everyone appreciates that this email was just a first step. We > are also aware that email sucks (I'm about to tear my hair out after only a >

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

Hi, Pam, board- Thanks for taking the time to write this down - I fully support the overall direction of these changes, fully endorse almost all of these specific changes, and greatly appreciate the effort it must have taken to put even this modest proposal together. One specific concern about th

Re: [License-discuss] Threading and topic drift (was: License licenses)

Someone: "What day did you switch from 'meh' on mailing lists to 'burn them all down', Luis?" Me: "May 31, 2019" More, as they say, inline. On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:44 AM Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Kevin P. Fleming (kevin+...@km6g.us): > > > As a regular Discourse user, I can say that this is

Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 7:27 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:31 PM Luis Villa wrote: > > > As the docs and our practice suggest, the board has always formally been > the final decision maker, never the list. But I'm not sure that the > distincti

[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD]

[should I bother continuing to move things off of license-review?] [tldr: I have said the OSI list is not very useful as currently constituted, but I don't mean that as an attack on OSI's authority; hopefully it's an opportunity for the org to note, identify, and fill some pragmatic real-world nee

[License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

[Trying to keep non-CAL stuff off license-review, though that feels like a futile battle] On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:40 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:34 PM Henrik Ingo > wrote: > > > Previously on license-review the License Zero license proposed a > > requirement to pub

[License-discuss] FAQs/steward links on opensource.org?

Today I learned that the UPL has an FAQ . Did we ever figure out how to link from opensource.org to materials from the license stewards? If so, can we add this link? Luis ___ Lic

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:32 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:18 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > > > > Does it help to make the document maintainer more than one person? Or > hinder? > > Help, I would think. > There are more nuanced questions than just the number of people involve

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

To be clear, my concern about a summarization process is less "honesty", and more simply basic competence :) If anything, I think centralizing most documentation in 1-2 places rather than throughout a thread would make it much easier to sniff out bad faith - it'd be much more apparent in the summar

Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 3/18/2019 9:21 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > > Bruce Perens writes: > > > >> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet > clear > >> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that > >> discu

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

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:32 AM Rick Moen wrote: > What I didn't go on to say at the time (as it was out of scope for that > topic), but am glad to say now, is that certainly mailing lists (and > newsgroups) have damning deficiencies for organising and tracking issues. > They're also pretty dread

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

[In the interests of brevity, have been aggressive in cutting and rearranging both of our quoted emails.] On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:32 AM Richard Fontana < richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote: > > It would be helpful if you could point more specifically to when and > how the discussion turned

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

[retitling and moving to license-discuss] On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/12/19 11:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:31 PM Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > >> If nothing else, SSPL was a serious license proposal and deserved > >> serious considerati

Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >> When I read this, I interpret *intimate data communication* as the >> relationship between a database driver and a database.

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com): > > > The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" > > that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom > > is mostly philosophica

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

(1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"? (2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would apply" (either explicitly or implicitly), does the board plan to talk with FSF about merging license lists and review processes? If not, why not? On Thu, Dec

[License-discuss] github.org/opensourceorg/licenses up-to-date?

Hey, all- I noticed that (AFAICT) the BSD+Patent license is not listed in https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses. Is this an oversight? If the repo is not being kept up-to-date as new licenses are approved, should a notice to that effect be put in the repo? I don't mean this as a criticism (I