Re: [License-discuss] Question about Blue Oak License

I'm curious why this particular license caught your attention. As far as I know, only the EUPL has an accommodation for moral rights. Wouldn't the same criticism hold true for all the other licenses too? Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal 300 Fayetteville Street Unit 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 +1

Re: [License-discuss] Volunteers for tagging licenses

Hi all, If you let me know you were interested in this project, but didn't receive the introductory email I just sent, let me know. Thanks, Pam On 2/25/2024 4:20 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote: Hi all, In June 2023, the License Review Working Group completed its work revising the li

[License-discuss] Volunteers for tagging licenses

Hi all, In June 2023, the License Review Working Group completed its work revising the license review process. There was an outstanding task that grew out of the Working Group, which was to create tags for the approved licenses that could be used as an aid in filtering approved licenses for t

Re: [License-discuss] Volunteers for tagging licenses

On 2/26/2024 8:20 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 2/25/24 13:20, Pamela Chestek wrote: There are two stages to this task. The first stage is to create a list of tags to be attached to licenses. There is already a preliminary list <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1svyrUgE6xwzaNO4xnh

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Volunteers for tagging licenses

On 2/25/2024 1:41 PM, Dirk Riehle wrote: Hi Pamela, all: In June 2023, the License Review Working Group completed its work revising the license review process. There was an outstanding task that grew out of the Working Group, which was to create tags for the approved licenses that could be

Re: [License-discuss] Question Mulan Permissive Software License

McCoy, Can you send me a diff too? Thanks, Pam On 12/4/2023 9:11 AM, McCoy Smith wrote: There are some differences between the OSI approved version and the latest (Jan 2020) version. Most cosmetic, some potentially substantive. Andrew, I’ll send you and Bjorn a diff between the two. [I’ve

Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On 2/6/2024 7:39 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: Question for the wider group: Can you point me to a document (legal or otherwise) that argues the unenforceability of ethical clauses, like these ones? I don't know that there is such a document, at least not under US law. We take a very liberal atti

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Bruce, The OSI treats all license submitters with dignity and respect, no matter how frivolous their licenses might be. That's what we did with the anonymous person who submitted the Vaccine License, one who took great pains to make it look like a legitimately held belief, including creating

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Request for Approval of 'new' Open Constitution License X

Moving to license-discuss. Pam On 8/25/2023 9:42 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 8/25/23 08:07, Pamela Chestek wrote: OSD 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups /(Y) except Article 5 which sets up relinquishment of rights or observing exclusion rights attached to any property, against

Re: [License-discuss] Reconsidering the "unless required by applicable law" clauses on warranties and limitations of liability

Amendments to the proposed CRA are being sought to limit its damage upon the OSS community, but I worry that its base premise (that warranties/liabiliies can not be waived, and thus even non-EU publishers of source code could be found subject to its fines) and theory of incentives (put all the

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

On 1/27/2023 1:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 1/26/23 18:10, Pamela Chestek wrote: The OSI has now posted the recommendations of the License Review Working Group. The blog post is at https://blog.opensource.org/the-license-review-working-group-asks-for-community-input-on-its-recommendations

Re: [License-discuss] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

Thanks Bruce. If you could add your comment on the wiki, that would be very helpful. We're trying to have just one feedback channel for comments. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/26/2023 10:09 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > The

[License-discuss] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

forward to all of your comments and insight. Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the

Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

in the JavaScript communitybut I digress. Chris On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 9:08 PM McCoy Smith wrote: > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss On > Behalf Of Pamela Chestek > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:47 AM > To: license-discu

Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

To do some foreshadowing, the Working Group that was formed to make recommendations for improving the license review process will soon be publishing its recommendation. This was originally within their remit, but the group agreed that it was complex enough (and frankly I think we were all a lit

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Final comment on Open Logistics License (was Re: For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2)

To be clear, this was held up in moderation. So it looks like Aaron posted after me but he did not. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 pam...@chesteklegal.com (919) 800-8033 www.chesteklegal.com On 12/14/2022 9:17 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Aaron, Aaron William

Re: [License-discuss] in opposition of 'choice of law' provisions in FOSS licenses

I'm asking that the conversation between Larry and Bradley been held privately. Both have had your say publicly and I'd prefer that the dispute not escalate here. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative ___ The opini

Re: [License-discuss] in opposition of 'choice of law' provisions in FOSS licenses

On 12/13/2022 11:15 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: First, is there an approved license that chooses a*specific*,*named* jurisdiction? There are many licenses that either name a specific jurisdiction, will have a specific, named jurisdiction once you know who the licensor is, or allow the licensor t

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

On 9/20/2022 3:15 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: So, to stay “Linagora's LinShare license doesn't comply with OSD” is misleading. It*does* comply with OSD (and AGPLv3) because Lingora actually gives permission to remove all the problematic restrictions that concern all of us and would (theoretical

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

On 9/19/2022 5:18 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Pamela Chestek dixit: (and something I think about occasionally). OSD says "The license must allow modifications and derived works ..." But it doesn't say ALL modifications. If it is construed as meaning ALL modifications, that inte

Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

I agree with Simon that it prohibits forking. It is also my position that trademarks are not "Legal Notices" as that term is used in the AGPL and I can go into that in more detail if anyone is interested. (And it's in my chapter in Amanda's upcoming book ...) For that reason it may not be permi

Re: [License-discuss] Consumer protection, defective product

On 11/2/2021 2:12 PM, Dirk RIEHLE wrote: Hello everyone, you may have seen this https://www.natlawreview.com/article/gpl-open-source-litigation-could-open-door-to-other-suits or similar in which the SFC sues Vizio over GPLv2 violation from the position of consumer protection, not from th

Re: [License-discuss] OSI as guarantor for "or later" *GPL clauses

On 8/31/2021 5:45 AM, Enrico Zini wrote: Hello, I would like to be able to license my code with one of the *GPL family licenses, and to add OSI as an extra entity that can guarantee for what "or later" might mean in the future. I'd like something similar to what KDE Foundation is doing: https:/

Re: [License-discuss] Google v. Oracle

The patent claim also dropped very quickly out of the case at very early stages - I think there may have been one published opinion about the patent claims but it wasn't significant IIRC. I'm not sure what you mean by "check the case according to the free software permissions," but the case re

Re: [License-discuss] Google v. Oracle

This is the CLE I mentioned in my comments, with Goldstein, Samuelson and Menell. It is really excellent. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 pam...@chesteklegal.com +1 919-800-8033 On 4/24/2021 4:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: To: OSI License Discuss For those o

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD... again.

On 4/5/21 10:54 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: So, to be clear, what happened is that the heading "Zero-Clause BSD" apparently got changed to "Zero-Clause BSD / Free Public License 1.0.0". It's not clear when this happened. I left the OSI board at the end of March 2019 (and also ceased having access

Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License

On 2/7/2021 3:09 PM, James wrote: On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:27 PM Langley, Stuart wrote: Thank you. The rationale is that in a company like ours (Disney in this case, but others obviously would share this concern) trademarks are a fundamental value of the company. We license marks very inten

Re: [License-discuss] OSI definition

As I said, it's time to shut this conversation down. No one's mind is going to be changed no matter how logical or illogical the arguments. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 2/1/2021 5:17 AM, Antoine Thomas via License-discuss wrote: I wou

Re: [License-discuss] OSI definition

I believe this line of discussion, whether or not corporations are people, has been exhausted and no minds are going to be changed. I suggest it's time to end it. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/26/2021 11:24 AM, Mat K. Witts wrote: This t

Re: [License-discuss] Invariant manifestos as an approach to expressing values / beliefs / missions for open source projects

It is a misperception to think that there is any "non-binding" part of a legal document. Everything in there is there for a reason (or should be). There may be parts that don't describe an action, but contract interpretation often involves determining the intent of the parties. This is often th

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] GDPR compliance through software license terms? (Re: Approval Request - ViraTrace Public Source License 1.0)

Moving the conversation to license-discuss, since it's not about the terms of this license specifically but more generally about the intersection of GDPR compliance and software licensing. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 12/10/20 10:39 PM, Roland T

Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

I will also add that the OSI learned this information fairly shortly after the license was rejected. The OSI considered the submission a Code of Conduct violation and addressed it directly with Bruce. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 8/26/2020 11:29 PM

Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

It was fairly clear when the Vaccine License was submitted that there was something afoot, the question was what. But we get many requests to approve licenses that aren't well-written or that on their face don't meet the OSD. We don't really have a choice but to treat them all with equal dignit

[License-discuss] Consultant for Project Management

g/bin/LicenseReviewToolRequirements/ If you or someone you know has experience with such projects, and would be interested in working with us (submitting a bid), please feel free to contact me. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initi

[License-discuss] Creation of License List Working Group

Group, please contact License Committee chair Pamela Chestek at pamela.ches...@opensource.org. Describe why you are interested in participating and a brief summary of your background and qualifications for the role. The intent is to have a fairly small working group that can work efficiently, with

Re: [License-discuss] What does "appropriate standing" in the review process mean?

Thanks! Appreciate the help very much. Re standing for Legacy, I used License Steward and Licensees, to address Richard/Simon's comments. Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 5/15/20 5:37 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Pamela Ch

Re: [License-discuss] Approval request: Legacy License "MIT No Attribution" or "MIT-0"

Hi Mark, This is the wrong list for submitting a license for approval, that list is License-Review. But this license was already submitted on License-Review for approval, so it's all set. Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 5/16/20 2:06 PM, Atwood, Mark via License-dis

Re: [License-discuss] What does "appropriate standing" in the review process mean?

, it's the license steward or "interested > licensee". > > > Thank you, Richard. > > I don't think there's an easy way to suggest wording changes to the > website without pestering Patrick, is there? If you write it I can make the changes to the page.

Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

t believe MIT-0 was submitted for approval. If I am mistaken, please send me the link to the submission email. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative ___ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and n

Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

Moving discussion to license-review, since the Unlicense is under review. Pam On 4/24/2020 10:45 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > Ignoring the legal morass of complexity that is the Public Domain, do > you honestly think there is any practical risk from honoring an > extreme permissive license where the

Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

Moving to license-review, since it is discussing a license currently under review. On 4/24/2020 10:38 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > “Unlicense” is a PD dedication, not a licence, and therefore > not portable to at least a good part of the EU, unusable both > for consumers and creators. I have to tr

Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0

On 4/22/2020 10:02 PM, Ryan Birmingham wrote: > If I'm not mistaken, MIT-0 would probably not be recommended for the > same reasons that the unlicense is not. > --Ryan The Unlicense has been submitted to License-Review and the review is pending. If you have objections to it, then you should raise

Re: [License-discuss] Fair license: does it require retention of copyright

I don't read TL;DR as suggesting that you don't have to include the copyright notice. As you say, the copyright information is part of "this instrument," and the summary says that the license must be included. I wouldn't infer that the absence of the copyright notice tag under "must" in TL;DR as su

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

I understand the concept of decertifying or removing, but I am very confused by the use of the term "deprecate." The current category of licenses are: Popular and widely-used or with strong communities International Special purpose Other/Miscellaneous Redundant Non-reusable Superseded Voluntari

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

On 3/31/20 9:13 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:08 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah wrote: The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been approved recently. You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices contained in the Source Code

Re: [License-discuss] REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses

On 3/26/2020 11:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/26/20 7:48 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: >> If AAL is a candidate for removal, should *all* licenses which have that >> sort of attribution requirement also be removed? > If you know of other licenses we passed with badgeware requirements, > please name

Re: [License-discuss] Who do we consider to be part of, or separate from, the open source community?

I'm going to suggest it's time to end this thread, and those of you still interested in the discussion should carry it on privately. The list is getting very lengthy emails from a vocal few reiterating the same arguments over and over. No minds will be changed at this point or new insights give

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

On 3/18/2020 12:46 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Tobie Langel (to...@unlockopen.com): > >> The math here assumes voters only cast a single vote, which isn't how this >> election works. > No, sorry, I made no such assumption. > >> Afaik the 35% number Coraline shared was based on data provided b

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

On 3/15/2020 8:19 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson > > wrote: >> >>  Ethical software is by definition not open source.  > > Can you point to any specific points in the definition of Ethical Open > Source that conflicts with t

Re: [License-discuss] Moderation observations

ouble. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative On 3/12/2020 9:28 PM, Nigel T wrote: > I haven’t been able to post but I can’t tell if it’s my phone or if > I’m blocked. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Simon Phipps

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

f offensiveness depending on the culture. As plain, non-rhetorical English as you can manage will the be easiest for everyone to understand and the least likely to unintentionally offend. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative On 3/12/2020 12:48 PM, Russell M

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

I wonder if we've reached a point where we're having a discussion about how to have a discussion. Is that a productive use of time? Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

Can we avoid defining viewpoints by stereotyping? I daresay there are many people over and under 40 in both the woke and unwoke categories. Perhaps we can define the category by the belief, not by the assumed age of the member. Thanks, Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

All, We'd like to remind everyone that ad hominem attacks are not acceptable and will ultimately lead to negative consequences for the sender. If anyone believes that an email was inappropriate, either expressly or implicitly, please bring it to the moderators' attention. Thanks, P

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

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. >> Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We >> have plenty of example

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/2020 9:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: > On 3/10/20 8:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an >> unpassable license on our website. > > Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We > have plenty of examples

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

philosophy to encourage > creators to be as open as they can be, and not to encourage the more > predatory aspects of proprietary source just because it''s not wholly > open source. Noting that I, of course, am just an opinion holder, not > someone who is important. > > Gra

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/10/2020 1:32 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > "I think the fundamental thing that bothers me the most about the OSD > 1.x is that it grants rights downstream, but doesn’t give the creators > any real rights. And that’s a major difference between open and > #EthicalSource — ethical source is abou

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

d. No, you shouldn't. License-review is a burdensome process for the OSI and the list participants, so it should be limited to real licenses, not thought experiments. License-discuss is for thought experiments. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open

[License-discuss] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

Moving to license-discuss since the license has been approved. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative On 3/4/2020 11:00 AM, Ian Kelling wrote: > VanL writes: > >> Hello Ian, >> >> Thanks for chiming in. A couple responses: >> &

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

/2019-June/004248.html and the second approving the second version here: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/004660.html The full Board then votes on the recommendation. A rationale document not approving the license is going to be the b

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

On 3/1/2020 5:58 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Is that so in the USA? Here it reads more like the exclusive exploitation > rights belong to the employer when done as part of hired work, but the > moral rights belong to the natural person who created it. There is no legally cognizable moral right i

Re: [License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

Gil, Thanks for asking the question; it is a topic that has always fascinated me. My belief based on my personal experience only is that software may be unusual in authors /not/ feeling that they have a strong sense of ownership of their work, regardless of who the legal owner is. I learned v

[License-discuss] Still looking for nice

writing to the person you respect most in the world, but who is a bit mistaken in their opinion so you want to politely point out the error in their reasoning. Thanks, Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discu

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

On 2/28/2020 3:31 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss wrote: > My memory on this is **very** fuzzy, and the details were explained in > somewhat technical legal jargon, so if I get this wrong, please forgive me. > There was some kind of issue involving giving what co

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

original authors didn't think about, so that the ultimately approved license is much higher quality than the originally submitted license. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discuss mailing list

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

I believe this meta-discussion has run its course and suggest it would be a good time for everyone to take a break from it. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

h him on some things (vehemently disagee on > some even), but I’m fully behind what he said. You are free to advocate against ethical source licenses as much as you like, and do it strongly, as long as you do it in a way that respects all people and all viewpoints. Pamela Chest

[License-discuss] Member conduct

input on our efforts. We hope that our continued efforts will bring more underrepresented voices to the table, and that those who left will feel safe returning. We want you all with us on this journey.   Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

I would like to point out that the OSI rejected the email ESR sent that Gil quoted (which I have removed) and it did not get published to the list. It would be helpful if everyone could make sure when replying they aren't inadvertently subverting the moderation process. Pam Pamela Chestek

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

On 2/25/2020 12:16 PM, Eric Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:02 AM Pamela Chestek <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > > I don't see the point of these contortions. Why not just write a > license > that says "everyone cas

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

On 2/24/2020 7:07 PM, Eric Schultz wrote: > (For full background, see previous thread) > > Before beginning, I strongly discourage anyone from using these ideas > with out talking to a lawyer; licenses are complex tools and the law > is not kind to those who violate it, particularly marginalized

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

On 2/24/2020 9:35 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Once you trip on it, entails > Twenty-nine distinct damnations > One sure, if another fails."  Sound's like IBM's patent license extraction scheme.[^1] Pam [^1]: For those of you not familiar, https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html. Pamela S. Ch

Re: [License-discuss] Please be kind

This fork of the thread is veering into unnecessary, unilluminating, and unkind rhetoric, and is the kind of conversation that gives the OSI license lists a bad reputation. I suggest that it's time for everyone to drop it. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initi

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

On 2/21/20 7:56 PM, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Eric Schultz (e...@wwahammy.com): Anyways, now that that is out of the way, my first idea is called the Persona non Grata Preamble. [...] In my opinion, OSI license-discuss participants would be well advised to pointedly not assist you on this, o

Re: [License-discuss] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

___ Van Lindberg van.lindb...@gmail.com <mailto:van.lindb...@gmail.com> m: 214.364.7985 On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: As suggested, moving to license-discuss. My concern with delisting is that someone will have

Re: [License-discuss] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

As suggested, moving to license-discuss. My concern with delisting is that someone will have relied on the approval and it would be unfair, and a bad look for OSI, to suddenly pull the rug out. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 pam...@chesteklegal.com 919-800-

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

On 1/5/2020 11:59 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:30 PM John Cowan wrote: >>> most people out there are rather on the >>> level of "Microsoft will close source Github". >> I thought Github's software was closed-source already. >> > Yes. That's why it's funny. > I was very amuse

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] AGPL timeline

Moving to license-discuss. Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/4/20 4:21 PM, Keith Zubot-Gephart wrote: On Sat Jan 4 03:18:16 UTC 2020 VanL wrote: You are right, copyleft-next is engaging in a public drafting process, and has not submitted the license to any authority.

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))

Moving this thread to license-discuss. The discussion on license-review should be about the merits of the license. A discussion of the OSI license review process itself should be on license discuss. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative On 1/3/20 11:49 PM

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

going, including active participation by OSI Board members, and the length of time that this license has been under review. Nonetheless, we received, further confirmed, and are honoring Bruce's request and he is no longer subscribed to any of the OSI mailing lists. Pam Pamela Chestek Chai

Re: [License-discuss] Why will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

I believe you have emailed the wrong entity; this is a list hosted by the Open Source Initiative. You can contact the Free Software Foundation at i...@fsf.org. Best regards, Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative On 11/7/2019 12:26 PM, gameonli...@redchan.it wrote

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

On 9/12/2019 10:23 AM, Gil Yehuda wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bruce Perens via License-review > > wrote: > > Friday next week at Open Core Summit, I will announce COHERENT > OPEN SOURCE. Let's scrap the Tower of Babel of 100+ Open S

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-discuss list. On 8/28/2019 1:18 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Pam Chestek wrote: > > > You've misidentified the copyrighted work. The statutory term is > "computer progr

Re: [License-discuss] Fact-gathering on OSI-approved licenses

On 8/22/2019 2:22 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss > wrote: >> Pam, >> >> I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically >> rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived. > I agree, even though a

[License-discuss] Fact-gathering on OSI-approved licenses

ce for fact-gathering. I also don't know what will happen once we have gathering the information, but I do believe gathering the information is the first step. Thanks, Pam -- Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative __

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

On 8/8/2019 3:57 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>> On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner >>> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> Subject: Re: [Lice

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

I agree with McCoy. "Grants" and "obligations" aren't necessarily separate concepts. I can say "I grant you a license with a scope of XYZ" or I can say "I grant you a license" and under "obligations" say "You can't use it outside the scope of XYZ." These have the same result but are stated differen

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Contribution Public License

You've added confusion with these two new paragraphs:        You are granted a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive,     no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except by not     fulfilling the above obligations) copyright license to use     and distribute this software without restrictio

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

eliberately confuse ownership of copyright with ownership > of copies it must be clear to you that all copies of copylefted works > falls under 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117.   > > Am Mi., 17. Juli 2019 um 15:50 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek > mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>>

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

1/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/ >   > > See also: > > > https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html >    > > Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Che

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes the act of running/using software > unrestricted and 17 USC 109 also severely impedes ability to control > distribution as far as copyright is concerned. So, you'll have to > stick to contractual covenants and figh

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/8/19 4:42 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 5:36 PM Pamela Chestek <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > > On 7/7/2019 4:23 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: >> While I haven't closely followed the details of Oracle vs Google, >>

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

the Supreme Court may not answer. In which case, the existing case law (particularly those cases for purposes of software talking to each other) would remain undisturbed. Pam > >   > > /Larry > >   > >   > > *From:*License-discuss > *On Behalf Of *Pamela Chestek &g

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/7/19 1:11 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > >> If I remember correctly, Oracle did find early on one function >> implementation that had indeed been copy pasted from OpenJDK to >> Android. But this was so minor (and obvious) it is not part of >> the issues decided in higher courts. >>

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/7/2019 4:23 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > While I haven't closely followed the details of Oracle vs Google, > purely from a layman and business standpoint it seems clear that > Google did create Android / Dalvik exactly to be interoperable with > Java. This means one can run the same Java source c

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/3/2019 3:09 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > I have no problem with disallowing direct copying… unless there is > only one (or an otherwise very small number of) way to express the > API so it will naturally come up similar (or even identical). So I put you on the Oracle side of the case in Oracle

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

On 7/2/2019 1:26 PM, VanL wrote: > Regarding 2): Data access is not out of scope for software licensing > generally; there are many examples of licenses that do or do not allow > for data access. I have personally negotiated a number of enterprise > licensing deals where data access was an explic

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

On 7/2/2019 11:25 AM, VanL wrote: > There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs > are not protectable under any IP law. They may be protectable under > copyright law, under patent law, or both. So 1) What is licenseable > about an API under copyright law? and 2) What is li

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

On 7/2/2019 11:31 AM, VanL wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek > mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL] > I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been > m

  1   2   >