On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:29 PM Erwan LE-RAY - foss
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I would like to get clarification on OSI approved GPLV2 SPDX identifiers.
>
> OSI website (https://opensource.org/licenses?ls=GPL-2) indicates that only
> GPL-2.0 is approved by OSI (GPL2.0+, GPL2.0-only and GPL2.0-or-lat
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:29 AM Nathan Willis via License-discuss
wrote:
> And those factors would need to interact predictably with a specification
> document that is free to read, implement, and share ... but the specification
> should not be forked or modified (since that would defeat the pur
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 6:30 PM Dirk Riehle wrote:
>
> If I believe various representatives (on Twitter and
> elsewhere) of companies like AWS, they believe they can use AGPL
> licensed code and the copyleft effect is wholly contained/doesn't affect
> their tech stack at all. Those who pushed sour
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:41 PM Jeffrey Clark wrote:
>
> Hello OSI folks,
>
> Would it be possible to add the legacy "MIT-CMU" license to the OSI approved
> licenses list so Python Pillow (Python Imaging Library fork) project can
> update its license to MIT-CMU, which we now consider "more corr
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:57 AM Chris B wrote:
> But in the meantime, I want to hear why some other OSS licensed projects have
> Terms, e.g. VSCode is MIT licensed and has terms:
> https://code.visualstudio.com/license
If I'm not mistaken, in that case (perhaps less than all?) the source
code
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:44 PM Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Hi license-discuss members,
>
> I'm working on a research project with Open Tech Strategies and the Open
> Source Initiative, on the topic of delayed open source licensing.
>
> This refers to licensing models where a project is initially
This looks like great work. Thank you Giulia!
Would the OSI consider maintaining the new metadata publicly (maybe in
github.com/opensourceorg/licenses)?
Richard
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> It occurred to me that I didn't announce the completion o
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 11:17 PM Stefano Maffulli
wrote:
> We can't find the archives (if they exist) of board discussions where
> licenses were formally approved, if such proof of approval existed in the
> first place.
>
> Does anyone have a recollection of how the board approved and kept reco
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:13 AM Giulia Dellanoce wrote:
>
> Good morning everybody and thank you Stefano for such a nice introduction.
> Being quite a neophyte to the world of open source software licenses, I am
> getting more and more interested in the subject as I am moving forward with
> the p
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Fontana answered this morning (here on license-discuss):
> Probably the most significant one historically is MPL 1.1 and its
> ancestors (California)
>
> Ugh, I'd forgotten that, but of course glad it's fixed! Was there anything
(moving this reply to license-discuss)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:41 AM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> Eric Schultz wrote:
> > We already have a number of approved licenses with a choice of law clauses.
>
> First, is there an approved license that chooses a *specific*, *named*
> jurisdiction? (There
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:36 AM Dirk RIEHLE wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I was trying to track down the license of the Apache 2.0 license (the legal
> text). The best I could find was this
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license
>
> On the OSI website there is also no
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 1:10 PM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> 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 c
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:22 AM Rob Landley wrote:
>
> In 2018 OSI held a vote to rename 0BSD (not dual-name it):
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html
>
> The license both shipped in Android M and was approved as Zero Clause BSD by
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> On 8/25/20 1:51 PM, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> > Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each
> > other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the
> > license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Tobie Langel wrote:
>
> In the section titled For Legacy Approval, replace:
>
> > By: License Steward or Interested Licensee
>
> with:
>
> > Have appropriate standing: License Steward or Interested Licensee
Could this be simplified to: "Has appropriate standing: A
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:28 AM Tobie Langel wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> The license review process[1] states that you need to have "appropriate
> standing" to submit a license review request.
>
> What does that term mean and where is it defined?
>
> Could we either define it on the same page or re
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:27 AM Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> Hello, all
>
> May I ask a question in this mailing list about the interpretation
> of a license for a commercial product? Although it would be
> patently off-topic, I don't know of another place where one may
> seek help of people conversta
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:48 PM Tobie Langel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The MIT-0 license[1] is an MIT license with the attribution clause removed.
> It has notably been used to license example and scaffolding code.
>
> It doesn’t look that it has been approved by the OSI. I couldn’t find it on
> th
@lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
--
Richard Fontana
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
+1 212 689-4350 (mobile)
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> 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 purp
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> FSF’s definition of what is a free software license includes badgeware
> licenses (because such licenses still meet the 4 software freedoms), but they
> also do not recommend use of badgeware licenses. See the comment on the
> 4-clause BS
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 (the “Notices”), and provide al
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:52 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> According to the OSI’s website, here is the author information on that
> license:
>
>
>
> Originally written by Edwin A. Suominen for licensing his PRIVARIA secure
> networking software (see www.privaria.org). The author, who is not an
> a
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:08 PM Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
>> Since none of our current problem licenses are (3), maybe we could skip
>> that criterion? It seems too subjective to actually employ. Here's my
>> suggested criteria based on yours:
>>
>> 1. license does not in fact conform to the OSD (was
stantially more
burdensome in practice than the BSD advertising requirement which only
kicks in if you generate "advertising materials mentioning features or
use of this software" and thus is likely to remain theoretical in most
cases.
Richard
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:06 PM Richard Fo
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> All,
>
> A submitter to License-Review just pointed out that we actually approved
> this license back in 2002:
>
> https://opensource.org/licenses/AAL
>
> There is absolutely no question that the AAL would not meet our license
> requirements t
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> ___
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:21 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Coraline Ada Ehmke:
>
> > Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is
> > based on a controversial social or political line?
>
> Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but:
>
> Some proponents of the GPL cit
conclusions, despite a lack of consensus
> finding which I do accept, but it’s a fascinating read regardless. It’s also
> a particularly interesting use of the license-discuss mailing list.
Van Lindberg wrote an article in response:
http://stlr.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/03/Lindberg-1.pdf
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:03 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> Looks like you're referring to Bryan Guerts (a NASA lawyer), who submitted
> NOSA 2.0 (not 3.0) on June 13, 2013:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2013-June/001944.html
> As far as I can tell, ther
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:25 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA)
> >>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:39 PM
> >>To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:18 PM VanL wrote:
> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
> licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - even without
> affirmative submission. Most of them will not be controversial. We want to
> reach a world in whi
> * List the names of organizations who are unwelcome but don't explain why.
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> > A license that has a preamble that singles out a particular
> > individual, or organization, or even a specifically-described group,
>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric Schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:20 AM VanL wrote:
> > I also think that it is troubling that forced inclusion of the preamble was
> > essentially forcing speech on those who may not agree.
> In regards to forced speech, I think this is an alread
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps
wrote:
> What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:06 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:26:25AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
[...]
> > One more practical and probably negative impact: it will always be
> > easier to add new names than to remove old ones, because adding new
> > names is a simple
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> The crowning irony of that incident was soon to follow: None of the
> badgeware firms (nor, as far as I can tell, anyone else) actually used
> CPAL.
Its most (or only) notable contemporary use may be by Mulesoft for the
"community edition" of i
is a pretty bad idea, at least for preambles
that take the "aggressive" approach, which I assume would attract the
most interest.
Richard
--
Richard Fontana
He / Him / His
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
(Moved to license-discuss)
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:53 AM Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:38 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
>>
>>
>> It matters whether proprietary relicensing is the primary use case for
>> at least a couple of reasons. First,
(Moved to license-discuss)
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:06 PM VanL wrote:
> Is one takeaway here that people should start by ignoring the OSI process
> and just start using the license?
Maybe. Not ignoring, but postponing.
The handful or so of the first licenses recognized by the OSI as 'open
so
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:55 AM Martin L via License-discuss
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering if anyone had links/knowledge about licenses which,
> after X amount of time (say, 10 years), release the code into the public
> domain?
copyleft-next
(https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-n
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 attempting to gather that information would be
much mor
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Howard Chu wrote:
>
> Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote:
> >>
> > I think what you're saying is that, assuming your interpretation of
> > AGPL (including but not limited to secti
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:51 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> Interestingly, I didn’t see AGPLv3 in any of the License Committee reports of
> that era. And I couldn’t see, through the Wayback Machine, that AGPLv1 ever
> got on the OSI list (although I haven’t done a comprehensive search of those
> a
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM Howard Chu wrote:
>
> Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote:
> >>
> >> Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd
> >>
> >> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neut
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Howard Chu wrote:
>
> Clause #10 of the definition https://opensource.org/docs/osd
>
> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
>
> No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or
> style of interface.
>
> I note that the Affero GPL http
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL wrote:
> 5. Scope of copyleft.
>
>
> - Beta 2 has been reworked to focus on the transfer of "licenseable" parts of
> the Work. This limits the application to what can be properly reached by a
> license, regardless of what the scope of copyleft turns out to be
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:44 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser
> >>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:37 AM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:38 PM VanL wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I b
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>>
>> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API
>> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does
>> not fit this d
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:41 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss
wrote
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:32 AM VanL wrote:
>>
>> Let's assume for a moment that 1) APIs are copyrightable, and 2) I have an
>> "expressive" API (for whatever value of "expressive" you choose). If I write
>> a reimplement
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:53 PM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> On 7/2/2019 11:25 AM, VanL wrote:
> Van, I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't answer the same
> question as "is it open source"? Add to that the interesting possibility that
> currently-existing licenses will now reach beyon
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
> [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new
> works using this license are not Open Source" category?
>
> I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review
> the current list to iden
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:47 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> From the updated https://opensource.org/approval:
> "the OSI determines that the license ... guarantees software freedom."
>
> I still have seen no coherent explanation of what software freedom means in
> the OSI context. Richard has asserted
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:03 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> Where there's been a substantial point made, I think the answer is probably
> yes - a concise and board-endorsed summary of the CC0 withdrawal, for
> example, would have been repeatedly useful to be able to point at over the
> years.
There
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:52 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
> In more recent times, but well before this change
> to the approval process, "software freedom" rhetoric has been
> especially emphasized publicly by people associated with the OSI, most
> notably Simon Phipps but
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:47 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> From the updated https://opensource.org/approval:
> "the OSI determines that the license ... guarantees software freedom."
>
> I still have seen no coherent explanation of what software freedom means in
> the OSI context. Richard has asserted o
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:27 PM Patrick Masson wrote:
> We would like to add the following information to each license page:
>
> - License Copyright: [Name of person/organization who submitted the license,
> and year submitted]
Patrick, I would suggest: (1) keeping the submitter of the license
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 8:32 AM Pamela Chestek wrote:
[replying to Rick Moen]
> But I hope to ease your concern that I am a rigid rule follower and can
> be gamed that way. First, even if I could be gamed or I have nefarious
> intent, the License Review Committee is four people and the Board is
>
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> Changes to the Website
> We have also made a minor change to the language describing the license
> review process on https://opensource.org/approval. The page formerly said
> “Approve, if (a) there is sufficient consensus emerging from c
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:24 PM VanL wrote:
> It is possible that under certain licenses (e.g. GPLv2) that the distributor
> might need to stop distributing, or identify particular jurisdictions in
> which it can be distributed, but that doesn't change its open source status.
As to the latter
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
wrote:
>
> In reviewing the OSD, some sections explicitly reference the license, such as
> section 3, while others explicitly reference the program, such as section 2.
> It's interesting to note that section 7, the one that Richard
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:48 AM Henrik Ingo wrote:
> - According to many imprecise metrics, 99% of all open source software
> in the world is covered by a list of about 20 licenses
> (https://web.archive.org/web/20190115063327/https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses)
> - OSI li
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:15 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> Let's clarify the history on CC0.
>
>
>
> Objection to CC0 was primarily you and Bruce which made it DOA regardless of
> the opinions of the rest of the list. There was no "quickly growing
> consensus" when they pulled the plug.
You're
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
wrote:
[...]
> OSI does not do so with regards to prospective licenses. It considers other
> factors besides the published definition.
>
[...]
> OSI’s License Review committee was unable to reach consensus on approving CC0,
The w
; Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pam...@chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:30 AM Stephen Paul Weber
wrote:
>
> > Saying "OSI's list isn't very useful in contracts or scanners" does carry
> an implicit question that I've probably also said explicitly on occasion: if
> people don't, by and large, refer exactly to the OSI list in their documents
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:56 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> Saying "OSI's list isn't very useful in contracts or scanners" does carry an
> implicit question that I've probably also said explicitly on occasion: if
> people don't, by and large, refer exactly to the OSI list in their documents
> and scan
source.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
--
Richard Fontana
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
roved as an open
> source license?
>
> You can contort OSD 5 and 6 to justify it, "you're excluding people who don't
> live near you!/are allergic to goats!/are doing more socially beneficial
> things on Fridays!" As Richard Fontana said earlier in the CAL threa
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to
> > proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I
> > found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that
> > back then. This surpr
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:22 AM Richard Fontana
wrote:
> I suggest we continue to think of the International category as
> encompassing licenses "targeting specific languages and
> jurisdictions", to use Mike's phrasing from 2015, rather than the
> typical app
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.
Richard
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opens
I have a different concern that goes to the political nature of
license proposals. If the submitter is responsible for maintaining the
PEP document, how can bias be avoided or minimized in the content of
the document? Even if one relies on a non-submitter volunteer somehow,
in many cases third-part
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:02 PM VanL wrote:
>
>
> I think it gets back to the core purpose of the OSI: To be a steward for the
> OSD and to certify licenses as compliant with the OSD. There are many other
> good things the OSI *can* do, but that is the one thing it *must* do.
>
> So how does tha
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:21 PM Rick Moen wrote:
>
> I cannot help wondering if Luis is seeking to solve the wrong problem.
> (As co-author of an essay on seeking help on technical problems, 'How to
> Ask Questions the Smart Way', I've seen a good bit of that.) If the
> main problem is 'Sometimes
I just noticed that I mistakenly sent this only to Luis but intended
it for the list as a reply to this thread. Sorry!
-- Forwarded message -
From: Richard Fontana
Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review]
Approval: Server
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:25 PM Ben Hilburn wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think if the decision process was more clear &
> transparent, it would be easier to tell whether or not "loud voices" actually
> do carry undue influence. As things stand now, I think you could construct
> pretty stron
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:51 PM Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> [Moving this thread to license-discuss as it is not about a specific license]
Thank you!
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:40 PM Richard Fontana
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I lean towards disagreeing with this; I think
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:40 AM Richard Fontana
wrote:
>
> We've drafted the guidelines below,
> which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a
> license will be approved only if it conforms to the Open Source
> Definition and provides software freedom.
Agreed, this is great!
Richard
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:46 PM Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkov...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 1:43 p.m., Chris DiBona wrote:
>
> As you may or may not know, Google has been deploying new TLDs (.app,
> .dev , .page, etc..) and my group wanted to
ng their own software-freedom-oriented review of licenses.
Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:38 PM Richard Fontana <
> richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>
> > At a recent meeting, the OSI Board discussed requests to clarify the
> > license approval process (docu
At a recent meeting, the OSI Board discussed requests to clarify the
license approval process (documented at
https://opensource.org/approval). We've drafted the guidelines below,
which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a
license will be approved only if it conforms to the Ope
Back in 2015 the OSI adopted an additional "International" license
category, as explained in this license-discuss posting by Mike
Milinkovich:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2015-June/019234.html.
The assumption at the time (at least to my recollection) s
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:29:16AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> There are two events coming up soon that I think many on this list would
> make excellent speakers / session facilitators for the events.
[...]
> Both events take place in Brussels, Belgium in early February 2019.
Thank you Bradley
86 matches
Mail list logo
