Hi!
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 5:09 PM Roland Turner via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> 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
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:41 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> Would the OSI consider maintaining the new metadata publicly (maybe in
> github.com/opensourceorg/licenses)?
>
We hope to do exactly that and also make it available via the license API,
but that project will need to be staffed and funded
t; I’m not seeing anything from Linaro on PACER.
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss *On
> Behalf Of *Simon Phipps
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:24 PM
> *To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare &quo
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Stefano Zacchiroli
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41:06AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote:
> > Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice
> in GPLv3.
>
> ... hence, one should be able to just remove these de facto "further
> restrictions",
I agree that all looks very worrying and probably disqualifying, but the
trademark terms in clause 2 are even worse as they prohibit you from
rebranding the software as would be essential to fork:
Using these trademarks without the (TM) trademark notice symbol, removing
> these trademarks from the
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew DeMarsh:
>
> >>
> >> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> >> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> >> a requirement within its contribution process.
> >>
> >
> > I'm
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:33 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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 In
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:29 PM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
> Sure. In my list the start of the 15 months review is essentially a
> deprecation. I didn't want to use that word, because deprecation to me
> implies the decision is already final. But I'm not against it either.
>
I would favour having a prel
n of the
discussion as it's off topic for the list - thanks!
Simon
--
Simon Phipps*, Board Director, The Open Source Initiative*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
will be temporarily suspended.
We all have enough stress in our lives at the moment. Please be kind.
Thanks!
Simon
--
Simon Phipps*, Board Director, The Open Source Initiative*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
So sorry, that should be singular, modera...@opensource.org
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:04 PM John Cowan wrote:
> Sorry to respond publicly to this call, but moderat...@opensource.org is
> bouncing with error 550, and saying "does not exist".
> ___
> Lic
, maybe sooner.
Thanks so much for your support and understanding.
Simon
--
Simon Phipps*, Board Director, The Open Source Initiative*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:59 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
> >>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>
>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM John Cowan wrote:
>
> What the OP is proposing is *not* restrictions. The license remains free
> and open source. Since all licenses require that they be preserved intact
> in all modified copies, it is a way to use the license as a virus to spread
> the opinions
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:14 PM Lukas Atkinson
wrote:
> However, that 90 day window is awfully long. While this is the typical
> embargo period, it intends to give the vendor enough time to verify,
> investigate, and fix the vulnerability, and to prepare the distribution of
> patches. This tries
ich is merely
> processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy
> wrote:
>
>> >>*From:* License-discuss [mailto:
>> license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Simon Phipps
>>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:55 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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
--
>
> The same email referred to in Fact 32 confirms there were
> conflicts of interest in the second abusive keyring change too.
> Both abusive keyring changes were therefore compromised by
> Mollamby and other hidden relationships.
>
> But the names of the culprits are hidden.
This thread is now closed.
Thanks,
Simon
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:21 AM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> I consider all of that incompatible with the real-world objectives of the
> FLOSS movement, but recognise that at this specific time in the life of the
> movement that I'm in the minority.
>
While there are a few people here who think t
(not citing the author as this is directed at all rather than a response to
him)
I think Pam’s approach is very reasonable, why not let’s try it and see!
>
In case this is unclear to anyone, Pam is acting here as the Director
responsible. The message she sent about OSI's process was authored
co
rce.org/lists
>>>
>>> > Moderators: You can reach the list moderators (Luis Villa and Karl
>>> Fogel) through the addresses they use for on-list communication.
>>>
>>> Contacted Luis Villa who told me however, that he's no long
ay
from the approval of a given license.
S.
--
Simon Phipps*, Board Secretary, The Open Source Initiative*
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
[Moving this thread to license-discuss as it is not about a specific
license]
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:40 PM Richard Fontana <
richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>
> I lean towards disagreeing with this; I think that the business model of
> the license submitter can be a material considerati
Site, Bio, Pics: http://dibona.com Twitter: @cdibona
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
--
Simon Phipps*, P
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 6:29 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> VM Brasseur requested:
> > Please move this conversation to license-discuss.
>
> I will comply. But I don't like it.
>
> (1) Mostly the same people are on both lists. What do we accomplish by
> this move other than splitting the important di
__
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
--
*Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
27 matches
Mail list logo
