Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively specifying `-only` or `-or-later` for GPLv2 in an adopted project

On 8/21/24 03:42, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > Hello together, > > My question in short: Is "GPLv2" by default "-only" or "-or-later" when > the suffix is not explicit specified? It's unclear, but "only" is the safe option. The "or later" is essentially a dual license, and merging a single commit

Re: [License-discuss] Request for clarification: OSI approved GPLV2 SPDX identifiers

On 8/8/24 04:38, 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+,

Re: [License-discuss] Request for feedback: public specification licensing

On 7/16/24 11:38, Simon Phipps wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 5:09 PM Roland Turner wrote: > > It's not a revenue question. The important issue is that all copies of > an interoperability standard must say the same thing, or > interoperability itself is defeated. > > Having

Re: [License-discuss] Request for feedback: public specification licensing

On 7/16/24 10:35, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > On 15.07.2024 18:43, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > >> In particular, you can't copyright function call signatures, variable >> names, return values, data structures, pretty much anything a software >> standard would cover. Oracle tried. We

Re: [License-discuss] Non-attribution license variants

On 1/3/24 23:56, Jeff Johnson wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm wondering the best way to go about distributing some files in > an ICU Licensed project, but without requiring any attribution. May I suggest Zero Clause BSD: https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ Creat

Re: [License-discuss] Cases that forced the AI industry to recognize the misuse of Open Source

On 11/1/23 09:44, Shuji Sado wrote: > Hi, > > Let me tell about an incident that occurred in Japan. ... > CC BY-NC is a non-commercial license, so it is not Open Source. In the > immediate aftermath, Matsuo Lab was criticized by Open Source > advocates on Twitter/X. > However, AI is now national

Re: [License-discuss] Query on "delayed open source" licensing

On 10/27/23 13:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > FWIW, I can confirm Larry Rosen's suggestion that indeed L. Peter Deutsch and > Aladdin Ghostscript likely invented the manipulative marketing approach of > pre-announcing that proprietary software might someday be FOSS and/or making > semi-binding public

Re: [License-discuss] Query on "delayed open source" licensing

On 10/25/23 23:30, JBC offsite wrote: > I think Roland Turner may be suggesting that MariaDB falls into that class? MariaDB was a trauma response to Oratroll's acquisition of MySQL the same way Libre Office was a trauma reaction to Oratroll's acquisition of OpenOffice. (According to the creator of

Re: [License-discuss] Query on "delayed open source" licensing

On 10/25/23 23:01, Roland Turner via License-discuss wrote: > (replying on list as this seems in scope for license-discuss, although it > clearly wouldn't be for license-review) > > This is in an interesting question and one that I've been thinking about > lately > (in particular as a potentia

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

On 4/5/21 10:23 AM, McCoy Smith wrote: > Isn't the problem here that this license was submitted initially for > approval under "Free Public License-1.0.0" Not "initially", no. I initially submitted it for approval to SPDX after it had been merged into Android M, and both occured before OSI ever he

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

On 4/5/21 9:54 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:22 AM Rob Landley wrote: >> Could someone please point me to where in the archives this issue was raised >> again and voted on again to change the name back without notifying me the >> issue >>

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

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 SPDX before it was ever submitted to OSI under a different na