Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Howard Chu >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:09 AM >>To: Richard Fontana >>Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Op

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Richard Fontana >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:02 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definiti

Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

There are posted archives of the license-review mailing list going back to December 2007, which is when Russ Nelson set up the new system: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/ Looks like AGPLv3 was submitted in January of 2008, and there was a bit of discu

Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Simon Phipps >>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:06 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License >>(CAL) Beta 2 >>Can you

Re: [License-discuss] Private modification

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Brendan Hickey >>Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 5:20 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] Private modification >>What are some good policy arguments in favor of restr

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

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

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

This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code. The patent grants are also inconsistent as between the preamble and the grant itself. You really should be working with a legal person on this if you're serious about it; there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language inconsist

Re: [License-discuss] Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

>>-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: [License-discuss] Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 >>• it looks like i

Re: [License-discuss] IP licensing: Specific performance (or damages) vs. Infringement - algorithm for (C++) programmers

Uh, the 17 USC 109 (first sale) case you want there would be Kirtsaeng: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_4g15.pdf From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:herr.al...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:05 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Cc: Smith, McCoy Subject: Re

Re: [License-discuss] IP licensing: Specific performance (or damages) vs. Infringement - algorithm for (C++) programmers

There are two mailing lists: License Review Charter: Reviewing submitted licenses for OSD Compliance and Proliferation concerns (as described in the Approval Process), in order to provide community recommendations to the OSI Board. License Discuss Charter: Dis

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

Plus, you’re not even doing it right. You’re excluding the most relevant case, more recent than the cases you cite, from the highest court in the US: But as already explained, we have always drawn the boundaries of the exhaustion doctrine to exclude that Activity [reproduction], so that the pa

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

most companies do :-) On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:45 PM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > >>From: License-discuss > >>[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of > >>VanL > >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM > >>To: license-discuss@lis

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

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:13 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an >>open source license >>Thought experime

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>The difference is that the AGPL is overbroad to wh

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>Let's work it through: The licensee in this case i

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:56 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>For example: I am a corporation, running modified

Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:31 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations >>On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek >

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

> I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 > licensed works represent a greater public good here and thus justify more > subsidy than others. > Hazarding a guess: the Installation Information provision of GPLv3 (aka anti-TiVoization) might have held sway here

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >>Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:01 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI >>It will, but I feel strongly

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Luis Villa >>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:46 PM >>To: License submissions for OSI review >>Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License R

Re: [License-discuss] License licenses

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Richard Fontana >>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:08 AM >>To: mas...@opensource.org; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses >>For

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 2:33 PM >>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >> >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss]

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of John Cowan >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:24 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses >>Government code is only public domain if it is written b

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Ben Hilburn >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:19 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses >>There are prominent examples of various orgs trying cle

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:57 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving th

Re: [License-discuss] Government licenses

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:32 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] Government licenses >>As he described it, goverment-written code is all public domain.

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 11:08 AM >>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >> >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:27 PM >>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >> >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>Subject: Re: [License-discu

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:03 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved >>list >>Yes, but it is not clear wh

Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of VanL >>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:53 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved >>list >>Right now, if a license is ce

Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek >>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:48 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: >>[Lic

Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility

Here’s what FSF says about incompatibility: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 It discusses GPLv3 (compatible) & GPLv2 (incompatible) but not LGPL. FWIW John Sullivan is looking to update the FSF FAQ and this is issue he might want to write a new FAQ on. Do you mind if I sha

Re: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Bruce Perens >>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor >>I thus feel all such things should be rejected,

Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Luis Villa >>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 10:13 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: >>[License-review] Approval: Server Side Publi

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Encouraging discussion around the technicalities of licensing

n around >>the technicalities of licensing >>On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 17:19 Smith, McCoy >>mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote:. IMO, the business model of the submitter should be completely immaterial, and the license should stand or fall based on whether it conforms to the O

Re: [License-discuss] Developing a new open source license

Given where we currently are in the Google/Oracle case, I’m curious how you define API (or if you define it at all). Would it require copylefting code that implements an API that is non-copyrightable, or implements an API when such implementation would be fair use? Anyway, I’ll be at CopyleftCon

Re: [License-discuss] OSL and obfuscated code

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:54 AM Antoine Thomas mailto:antoine.tho...@prestashop.com>> wrote: Dear Sir or Madam, I’m reaching out as Open-source Advocate for PrestaShop which is the designer and editor of an open source software solution, released under a free license (Open Software Licence OSL

Re: [License-discuss] GPLv3 'permanent' license reinstatement?

>>I do not believe the intent in the drafting was to provide a mechanism for a >>licensee to escape the obligations of the license, but I can't see how >>'permanently' could reasonably be interpreted in any other way. If you want to discern the intent and effect of the language in this license

Re: [License-discuss] GPLv3 'permanent' license reinstatement?

"However, if you cease all violation of this License " is the precondition to that reinstatement condition. If you begin violating the terms again, how could you have "cease[d] all violation of th[e] License"? -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@list