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

On 16/7/24 12:38, Simon Phipps wrote: Hi! On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 5:09 PM Roland Turner via License-discuss 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 itse

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

On 16/7/24 11:35, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: On 12.07.2024 03:56, Richard Fontana wrote: > 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 .

Re: [License-discuss] What's wrong with the AGPL?

On 26/6/24 20:42, Dirk Riehle wrote: On 20.06.24 02:35, Josh Berkus wrote: > A lot of this discussion has been around the AGPL "failing" startups > who wanted to use it to protect themselves from web service competition. > > This is not that the AGPL was written for. > > The AGPL was written f

Re: [License-discuss] What's wrong with the AGPL?

On 17/6/24 00:08, Dirk Riehle wrote: Thanks for the answer. >> Is there any recognized published statement that explains whether the >> AGPL achieves a network copyleft effect as intended or not? And if the >> conclusion is that it doesn't what's the alternative if you want this >> effect? > > A

Re: [License-discuss] What's wrong with the AGPL?

On 14/6/24 06:29, Dirk Riehle wrote: Hello everyone, I wrote this email three times and discarded it; I simply don't know how to ask. Final try. If I believe various representatives (on Twitter and elsewhere) of companies like AWS, they believe they can use AGPL licensed code and the copyleft

Re: [License-discuss] License Questions

Hi Marshall, On 13/2/24 12:01, Marshall Lake wrote: I assume these already-available licenses are "umbrella" licenses and I can put my project under that license? If so, do I still need to go through the review process? Yes, the OSI Approved Licenses can be

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

On 7/2/24 01:45, Pamela Chestek wrote: Instead I think it's a practical problem. Licenses are not self-enforcing, someone has to bring a legal claim for enforcement. Only the licensor can enforce the contract (unless the license has a third party beneficiary, in which case the third party can en

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

On 6/2/24 23:39, 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? Not on unenforceability but on harm to F/OSS communities, I spoke on The critical importance of use

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

(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 potential talk for FOSSASIA 2024) because of the recent rush of half-baked "open

Re: [License-discuss] Evaluating the Enforceability of a License Should Not be a Criteria for OSI License Review

I suspect that the conversation is getting snagged on a false dichotomy: enforceability is not in fact a binary characteristic of a license, only of a license in the context of a specific dispute, with specific plaintiff and respondent, in a specific jurisdiction, on specific facts, at a specif

Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: Should fork a project on github be seen as distribution of origin project?

Hi Aaron, I found an interesting project protected by Apache-2.0 in github. Now I want to modify some functions and some new features to develop a new software based on the original project. Naturally I want to fork it and start my coding, but there is a confusing thing, should I fulfill the

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

On 3/11/21 02:12, Dirk RIEHLE wrote: 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 the position of an original rights holder. According

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

On 28/10/21 06:21, Enrico Zini wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 06:15:42PM -0400, Andrew DeMarsh wrote: > In truth I'm not even really sure where you would send this kind of request > to the OSI other than maybe it's Legal representative. Yes, quite. I tried that first, and they told me to write

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

All, I continue to noodle with the problem of people increasingly aware of harm happening around them[1] seeking to add use-limits to open source licenses: * Ignoring this shift seems undesirable. * Tacking on use limits seems incompatible with what OSI is about. An approach came to mind w

Re: [License-discuss] GDPR compliance through software license terms?

Thanks Pam, I was conscious of the scope problem when I posted, but figured that a short excursion into the novel benefit claimed of the proposed license was probably reasonable within the review, given that that claim was the basis for its design. Do you feel that opening that discussion here