Dear OSI,
I hereby resign under protest from also the licence discuss list.
This is protesting both your recent biased process towards
judging so-called “AI” and the way your members treat multiple
high-profile community leaders, including rejecting their opinion
offhand due to the aforementioned
Kevin P. Fleming dixit:
>> https://forms.gle/DVNrLk7A5hX1YAfG6
>
>It appears that this form needs to have its permissions opened up to
>allow people who are not members of the OSI group in Google Workspace
>to see it :-)
I question that the OSI uses such a proprietary thing anyway.
This is appall
Brian Behlendorf dixit:
> My premise is that if you can not hold me free from
> liability or warranty, I have the right to not allow you access to the other
> rights granted in my software license.
But do you, really? It’s more an everything-or-nothing thing because
they are present as soon as th
Brian Behlendorf dixit:
> confusingly believing that in those jurisdictions where warranties and
> liability can not be entirely waived, that the rights in the license are still
> conferred regardless, and that whatever baseline warranties, liabilities, and
According to an ifrOSS analysis they in
Kevin P. Fleming dixit:
>For the vast majority of OSI-approved licenses, the activities you
>noted above do not trigger any license obligations because you are
>only using the software and not distributing it. A notable exception
>is the AGPL family of licenses, which extend the 'distribution'
>de
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>My interpretation is that OSD #3, in the words after the comma, does permit
>immutable terms. Attribution is usually a statement of copyright ownership
>and qualifies as a term. Rants do not.
>> > What about "If the Work includes
>> > a 'NOTICE' text file
Pamela Chestek dixit:
> What about "this permission notice shall be included in all copies or
> substantial portions of the Software"?
That’s the licence text itself.
> What about "If the Work includes
> a 'NOTICE' text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative
> Works that You distr
Pamela Chestek dixit:
> (and something I think about occasionally). OSD says "The license must allow
> modifications and derived works ..." But it doesn't say ALL modifications. If
> it is construed as meaning ALL modifications, that interpretation gets hard to
> reconcile with elements typically
Josh Berkus dixit:
> to the main project, they just need to be open source somewhere, which
> can just be a matter of creating their own public GH/GL repo.
Not even that, they just need to be made available to users of
the service.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. O
Alex Rousskov dixit:
> For example, IMO, the "prominent notice" may come in a form of "See the
> NOTICE file for details about this software modifications." text
The NOTICE file is the absolutely worst place for this as it’s an
append-only must-not-be-removed requirement of the Apache 2 licence
robert.pol...@posteo.net dixit:
>> the terms of the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (version 3.0 or later)
The -NC- licence types of Creative Commons are nōn-free.
Anything under those licences is not OSD/OKD-conformant.
> The main question seems to be whether it
VM (Vicky) Brasseur dixit:
>> Can I suggest that you give your new license a name to clearly
>> distinguish it from other licenses, particularly the ALv2?
>
> +1 to this suggestion…
Before doing so, I’d consider the suggestion of reaching out to
the ASF and asking whether they would take this for
David Woolley dixit:
> On 18/01/2021 22:08, Gil Yehuda wrote:
>>A team of engineers at any
>>company can use the code under the terms of the license, for anything they
>>please. They can make a product for profit. Only the company itself
No, the engineers acting on behalf of the company are agen
Mat K. Witts dixit:
>Are there any objections to this interpretation?
Yes.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God a
Roland Turner via License-discuss dixit:
> would/should it be an acceptable condition in an OSI-approved license that an
> unmodified project manifesto be included in any copy of the software? This
Stopping right here: no.
We already had this with GNU “F”DL’s invariant sections.
Consider this:
Russell Nelson dixit:
> Yes, what I'm proposing goes against the law. The question is what harm is
> created and what benefit is created, not whether a law exists or not. If you
It’s also immoral and goes against the wishes of at least some
permissive-licencing authors.
*Especially* with permiss
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
>This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public
>Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the
>project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this
>relicense.
>
>I’m not convinced that “don’t need to worry” and
Hi Tom,
>Ignoring the legal morass of complexity that is the Public Domain, do you
>honestly think there is any practical risk from honoring an extreme
>permissive license where the copyright holder effectively says "I disclaim
[…]
>I just don't see the copyright holder having any ground to stand
mc...@lexpan.law dixit:
>The second paragraph of Unlicense is a license, at least as much of a
It’s not:
|This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
This is a voluntary relinquishing of copyright protection done by the
authors. (Whether this is valid in the country
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>The Unlicense has been submitted to License-Review and the review is
>pending. If you have objections to it, then you should raise them there.
Erk… thanks for the heads-up. I’ll have to forward my mail there then.
>No one has mentioned any way in which it doesn't meet the
Ryan Birmingham dixit:
>reasons that the unlicense is not.
“Unlicense” is a PD dedication, not a licence, and therefore
not portable to at least a good part of the EU, unusable both
for consumers and creators. I have to treat stuff under the
“Unlicense” as proprietary unlicenced unusable crap.
(
Tobie Langel dixit:
>iirc, the problem with CC0 is that the author explicitly retains all
>patent rights (4a).
Right, and it doesn’t even grant a licence to use, except under
specifically limited to copyright law and neighbouring rights.
>Probably not a legal issue for such cases, but may
>well
Josh Berkus dixit:
>I would argue that, if there's nobody using it, we shouldn't approve it
>as "technically OSS but not really needed". But if projects are using
Didn’t we have a… resolution, or so… that licences that are the
approved ones with only removal of restrictions (or changes to
things
Ashkar Dev dixit:
>if I have a page and it includes some codes, some of them are mine code and
>there is also some part from some MIT Licensed Projects so is it legal to
>add all licenses at the top? I mean not adding the License directly with
>the code but at the top of its file.
I don’t fully u
Ashkar Dev dixit:
>can you explain the point that says to include the license of used code,
>but can it be included inside the file but not directly with copied code?
Not sure I understand you directly, but:
If you redistribute some MIT-licenced work which has documentation,
and the documentatio
Russell McOrmond dixit:
>Software license agreements are conditions upon which permission is granted
>to do activities which copyright or (unfortunately in some jurisdictions)
>patent law require permission for.
>
>If what you wish to discuss is voluntary then it is part of a community
This got m
Coraline Ada Ehmke dixit:
>Can you point to any specific points in the definition of Ethical Open
>Source that conflicts with the OSD? (I’m not talking about ELOS.)
#2 (OSD#6 and OSD#10 probably, and Debian’s desert island test)
which is an undue burden anyway
#3 (doesn’t belong into a licence;
Gil Yehuda via License-discuss dixit:
>Sometimes she'll say, "but it's my code." and I'll say, technically it's
This is weird. I can differentiate between author and licensor.
>work for hire that you assigned the copyrights to the company, but I
Is that so in the USA? Here it reads more like th
Grahame Grieve dixit:
>specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
>from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
>This precludes discrimination against illegal activities, either in the
>source or user jurisdiction, right? Has this ever been
Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss dixit:
>This exploration is a beautiful change of pace that I can get behind,
Agreed, something positive for once!
[…]
>across multiple projects, but I actually don’t perceive any of it as
>“my code” even where the inception, authorship, and sharing
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit:
>But as it currently stands, I don’t know if I’m exposing both the USG
>**and users of my work** if I use a standard license when some of the
>clauses don’t apply.
I’m publishing digital editions of music from composers dead for lo
Josh Berkus dixit:
>And yet you just managed to make a spirited refutation of the license
>header proposal without once resorting to name-calling and profanity.
>So clearly it is possible for any civilized human to do so.
There’s quite a distance between the first two quoted lines of yours
and th
VM Brasseur (OSI) dixit:
>The purpose of the list is right there, as they say, on the tin:
>license discuss.
Ooooh, but you forgot to quote the most important part!
It says, in total: ‣‣‣ license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
There’s an “opensource” in there that, as hosted by the OSI,
directly
Joshua R. Simmons dixit:
>I just want to underscore that this is, indeed, meant to be a place where
>we can discuss licenses ;-)
Ones that improve Open Source, sure.
Licences that introduce new arbitrary restrictions… not so much.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
“It is inappropriate to require that a time
John Cowan dixit:
>>Social justice clauses /Does Not/ belong in licenses, in any form.
>
>I agree, for reasons stated.
OSD #11?
(just kidding, a common practice used by the approvers will suffice)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
whe
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the
Au contraire, his dual licence isn’t enforceable, unless it
allows me to exercise my right (and possibly even duty!) under
the LGPL to give a copy to Amazon under LGPL, which they then
can use under LGP
VanL dixit:
>But think about OSD #5, which prohibits discrimination against people or
>groups, or OSD #6, prohibiting discrimination against fields of endeavor.
In addition to that, it would require users to redistribute statements
which may be diffamatory (unless the user can prove the contrary)
Philippe Ombredanne dixit:
> See
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UphruKKAlsoUEidPCwTF2LCcHFnQkvQCQ9luTXfDupw/edit#heading=h.p2d7mni4lrcu
Why do you use Google services for OSS work?
https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html
It’s also questionable, GDPR-wise, let alone in OSS spirit,
a
John Cowan dixit:
>but in general any property (except land) can be abandoned by any overt act
Maybe in America, but not in Europe.
Public Domain is the absence of copyright protection, and a licence
only works when there is copyright protection. In at least some
countries it’s not permitted to
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit:
>Yeah, but the advantage of having it in the ELF file is that you don't
>need to execute the file to get at the source
?!?!?!
JARs are PKZIP archives. You can use something like Info-ZIP unzip(1)
to get at its contents. (We bundle
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit:
>If it were to be done seriously, then a great deal more thought would
>need to go into it. In one of the messages I sent out (see
What I’m doing at $dayjob (which is involved in Java™ mostly) is to,
at build time, do…
1. check if
Florian Weimer dixit:
>for shipping corresponding source code that was actually compiled, and
>not just upstream tarballs plus downstream patches.
upstream tarballs plus downstream patches is preferred form of
modification, though
>It's not unreasonable to do this for link-time optimization purp
richard dagenais dixit:
>Someone has mentioned that in order to be able to use the open source
>software you must make your software open source as well. Our software
This is not generally true, but details are very intricate.
>Is it possible to simply include the open source Java runtime in our
Gil Yehuda dixit:
>in software as being only one of three. Rather to summarize the FSF's
>movement philosophy, as they describe it. As well as capture the essential
>value proposition that cause the open source movement to branch from it.
I don’t think that “the open source movement” somehow “bra
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>if you are making something that you want everyone to use, you would use a
>gift style license. The BSD or Apache, for example. These are useful for a
>reference implementation of a standard, or a library function which you
>want everyone to copy and do you
Gil Yehuda dixit:
> - *Free*: an ethical movement that sees proprietary software as a social
> wrong/evil. Licenses are designed to reduce this evil.
> - *Open*: a crowdsourcing movement that enables networked value
> production. Licenses allow participants to manage their intentional
>
Johnny A. Solbu dixit:
>He have said in inverviews that he wants code back. He wants the
>changes people use, but says that publishing the changed code on the
>projects own site is enough. He considers that «sendig back» code.
Yet, this is not required by the actual licence. (Most OSS projects
wo
Johnny A. Solbu dixit:
>On Thursday 22 August 2019 06:17, Howard Chu wrote:
>> Two of these which often appear necessary are the Chinese Dissident
>> test (requirement to publish will endanger them as it makes identi‐
>> fication possible)
>
>I don't believe this test is conclusive. Sending modifi
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>As a software author, and in order to best support my community, I should
>see security information about my own software as soon as possible. Thus,
[…]
>So, I am not so inclined to value the Insurgent test, or whatever it's
>called. It's fantastical in nat
VanL dixit:
>What would everyone here think of the following exception to the CAL's
>requirement to provide source code:
It might address the topic, but I have a really hard time wrapping
my head around all the restrictions and terms used.
I’d like to argue in favour of a general grace period be
Howard Chu dixit:
>A standard license clause of this form would also have ended the
>debate over disclosure of zero-day vulnerabilities and other such
>nonsense that plagues today's software world. I.e., you would have a
>clear obligation to inform the software authors of any flaws you
>discover i
Dixi quod…
>• We also both found the reference to linking to that web page in
> particular problematic (“At some point in the future, that page
> may well disappear, or become something else, or have a "refined"
> form of the license terms that is non-copyfree”), but as handing
> out the compl
Hi everyone,
it hasn’t popped up here or on l-r, but my girlfriend found
https://blueoakcouncil.org/2019/03/06/model.html which links
to https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 for a new licence.
Posting here because it hasn’t been submitted for review yet,
so we can discuss, if someone is inter
Alexander Terekhov dixit:
>"But there is one more important result here. Do you remember all the
>predictions on message boards all over the web by anti-GPL activists
>like Alexander Terekhov that someone could get a copy of Linux, under
>the GPL, and then make copies and sell them under another l
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>Java and Android are not designed to work together. The purpose of the
>copying was not for interoperability between Java and Android.
Erm… no.
Android is a runtime for the Java™ programming language,
similar to how OpenJDK is, or J2ME.
They run on different operating env
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>My opinion has been that gift-style licensing makes you an unpaid, and
>unappreciated, employee of big companies.
Definitely not. Employees get told what they can work on, how it
should look in the end, and often enough how to work on it.
With Ⓕ Copyfree
VanL dixit:
>And just so the actual scope is not further misconstrued, you only have to
>give the owner of the data an option to get a copy if the owner of the data
>has also received the software, or a portion thereof, or been a recipient
>of the services provided by the software from you.
This
VanL dixit:
>And more broadly, are "users" of SaaS programs not "users"? If I am not
There’s a distinction between Free Software (where the user is the
person running it) and Free Services (in which people interacting
with the software get additional consideration).
I think it’s important to not
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:21 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>> Copying of parts of the headers is fine
>
>Not just part, the entire header. […]
Yeah, I touched on that in my very long recent mail.
For C, watch out for macros with implement
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>On 7/3/2019 3:09 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> I have no problem with disallowing direct copying… unless there is
>> only one (or an otherwise very small number of) way to express the
>> API so it will naturally come up similar (or even identical).
VanL dixit:
>In an open source case, it would look more like Oracle v. Google: there
>would be access to the source code and possible direct copying. The CJEU
>made clear that was a distinguishable point.
I have no problem with disallowing direct copying… unless there is
only one (or an otherwise
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>Please don't tell me that private modifications are a right fundmental to
>Free Software or Open Source, because they stop being a right under current
>FSF-authored and OSI-accepted licenses if you distribute, deploy, or
>perform.
Private modifications are
VanL dixit:
>You just put your finger on the issue: Are APIs creative in a copyrightable
>sense? You assert, without argument, that they are not.
Hmm.
I still think they aren’t creative, but have nothing to back that up.
With them being not under protection from copyright laws as necessary
for
John Cowan dixit:
>On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>IMO the right to sequester "private modifications" went obsolete as soon as
>> there was SaaS. It's not in the OSD and I never considered it fundamental
>> to Free
VanL dixit:
>There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs are
I would, but IANAL. European here, though.
>If the API is part of the "Work" for copyright purposes, then copying the
>API
That’s just the thing. The API is the outwards-facing interface,
designed for interop
VanL dixit:
>For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a way
Or even: AGPL software to which a not publicly disclosed security
patch has been pre-applied.
This breaks the embargo. (Kudos to, IIRC, Florian Weimer for discovering
this… “gem”.) It is therefore not possible
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>But it also is equally good for open source software because the
No, it would be really bad for OSS in general, because…
>copyleft effect would have greater reach
… that would imbalance the scales away from copycentre/Ⓕ copyfree
and towards copyleft, which per se is the m
Christine Hall dixit:
> Open source licenses (again, according to my understanding -- folks with
> many years experience at OSI should correct me if I'm wrong) should
> apply only to the software being licensed, and the data collected by or
> stored within a software application is clearly not par
>On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>>
>> /Until now, the principle of copyleft has only been applied to
>> literal code, not APIs. TheB licenseB submitterb s proposal is for a
>> copyleft effect that would apply to new implementations of the API
>> even w
Rick Moen dixit:
>Anyone's GitLab is also (IMVAO) grossly overengineered. From my own
Yes, and I’d also not touch Ruby. I’ve not mentioned this much
because it was growing OT (hence the Subject change).
>better-designed alternatives such as Gogs and Gitea.
*cough* sshd and gitweb, and a post-r
John Cowan dixit:
>A basically volunteer agency like OSI "self-hosts" when someone
>volunteers to host for them. When that volunteer loses interest, the
>"self-hosting" goes away.
OK, good point. I was thinking of individuals, or a bunch of
like-minded individuals (but still defined by them inste
(restored natural reading order, http://deb.li/quote for details)
Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 12:14 Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss <
>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>Rick Moen said:
>>>reference to self-hosting his code repo for i
Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss dixit:
>If it’s not publicly available and discoverable, I’m not sure I’d care
>or consider them a qualifying use (for purposes of being considered a
>license in use).
Not really.
Desert island, chinese dissident… or even simple things
such as, a cod
Luis Villa dixit:
>But if a license can't be found in the tens of millions of projects on
>GitHub, plus Fedora/Debian[2], then for many (all?) policy purposes I think
>OSI should feel comfortable saying "this is unused, or close enough that we
>feel OK treating it as unused"...
It should most cer
Brendan Hickey dixit:
>may be helpful.
The problem is not the tooling to check for licences.
The reason I postulate one can absolutely not even come
anywhere close to checking whether a licence is in use
is that people don’t necessarily use public hosting
services, nor even all that well-known o
Pamela Chestek dixit:
>Is there any way to find out if some of these licenses are even still
>in use (or ever were)?
No.
Not even remotely.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
___
License-discuss mailing list
Lic
Smith, McCoy dixit:
>problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be used
>as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD
>compliant licenses must also be approved.
That’s why we could have a category for them, to make clear that
they are *NOT* precedent.
(Classi
Russell McOrmond dixit:
>On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>>license can be couched as an OSD 5/6 violation, because any
>>conceivable problematic feature of a quasi-FLOSS license is going to
>>be describable as a discrimination against *someone*. What has
In Debian, we hav
Chris DiBona dixit:
>As a side not, we (Google) open sourced etherpad of you're looking for
That works with almost no browsers. Not with lynx, links, links2, w3m,
dillo, Arachne, …
bye,
//mirabilos
--
>> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also don't like enabling JavaScript in
> Because I use lynx
Lawrence,
please stop promoting your agenda under a (very) thin cover
of discussing licences. You’re annoying, in larger doses.
Sorry, but this had to be said.
>This entirely compatible commons includes software under the MPL,
>Eclipse PL, LGPL, and OSL 3.0 licenses.
Perhaps, but, other than th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA384
Patrick Masson dixit:
>We would like to add the following information to each license page:
Information for: https://opensource.org/licenses/MirOS
Title: The MirOS Licence
Short identifyer: MirBSD
(or MirOS, apparently that took off… but o
Smith, McCoy dixit:
>Here’s what FSF says about incompatibility:
>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
Aaaah, so “APL” means “Apache”… d’oh.
>It discusses GPLv3 (compatible) & GPLv2 (incompatible) but not LGPL.
There is nothing to discuss there. Both Apache and LGPL only
app
Patrick Schleizer dixit:
>It is an established fact in case history that Terms of Service are only
The warranty disclaimer is not terms of “service”, it’s a condition
on the licence on the work, issued to the general public on the
condition that they accept it.
Since copyright is by default, the
ks for considering,
//mirabilos
--
Thorsten Glaser (Founding Member)
Teckids e.V. — Digital freedom with youth and education
https://www.teckids.org/
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/li
Rick Moen dixit:
>I appreciate your speaking, Kevin. I continue to be curious about
>whether users would be expected to enter a contractual relationship with
[ any third party ]
>in order to participate.
+1
This is something that occurs more and more, but a bad thing.
See also: http://mako.cc/w
Tom Callaway dixit:
>On 10/26/2018 11:32 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> So if it's not as free everywhere as it would be in Debian,
>> it's not free enough for Debian.
>
>It has never happened that I know of, but if there were a copyright
>license which was somehow okay only in Fedora (but not for an
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
>But I also understand and appreciate the MongoDB business case dilemma. If
>they just give their software away without some copyleft conditions for free
>network use, they will not profit much from it.
I don’t.
It’s possible to support a large enough company (I know of sev
Tzeng, Nigel H. dixit:
>And cathedral is every bit as valid a development style as bazaar for
>open source.
I completely agree, I’m a BSD person after all.
But “community” is usually understood to be those *outside* of
those who are the cathedral.
For example, if I have a large company, with hu
Mike Milinkovich dixit:
> On 2019-01-09 5:16 p.m., John Cowan wrote:
>> Foundation.B Wikipedia lists only four beyond the four you mentioned: ksh,
>> graphviz, Jikes, and UWIN.
And ksh and UWIN come from (well originally, ksh93 was forked)
the same source tree.
> But until or unless the OSI ch
Christopher Sean Morrison dixit:
>statement on their code with an explanation? Does Berne saying a work
>typically has reciprocal right protection imply Gov’t codes have full
There was a case where one US government employee has successfully
defended their copyright in a work outside of the USA.
interface of any kind? Licenses
>which require attribution in the user interface (regardless of the
>form it may take) restrict the ability to reuse the code.
That’s also true. Think of people wishing to create coffee cups with
excerpts (code or documentation) on it, too ;)
> On Tue, D
Antoine Thomas dixit:
>For web apps, you can add an attribution file at a known path, e.g:
>foo.com/attribution.md, this is easy to check even if the link is not
No, this will absolutely not work, imposing the presence of
certain files/locations is too onerous.
The use case is interesting, but I
Antoine Thomas dixit:
>A possible use in case of "too many attribution/advertising clauses" is to
>provide a link to a page with all licenses, dependencies, ...
Yes, we have a long manpage with all them in MirBSD, but this
only works if the licence does *not* require the exact style
of presentati
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
>this phrase: "We want open standards, with royalty-free patents, for
>open source software."
Actually, we want that patents don’t apply to software.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or o
Johnny A. Solbu dixit:
>Is there an english version of that page?
Eek. Yes, of course, but apparently the webserver is not
intact currently. Normally, it was linked there, too…
I’m digging it out of the Wayback Machine:
A working version of the original German site *with*
links to the other ver
Kevin P. Fleming dixit:
>reinstated' according to the text. "cease all violation of the
>License" indicates a point at which I have returned to being in full
>compliance, not an ongoing state of affairs (at least in my layman's
I actually looked up the various translations of “cease” into
my nati
Kevin P. Fleming dixit:
>As I read this, if I violate the license terms, notice my own
>violation, cure it, and at no time does anyone else notify me of my
>violations, then my license is reinstated *permanently*. If the
>reinstatement is indeed permanent, how could it ever be terminated
>again if
Peter Corless dixit:
>Party C, meanwhile, can do whatever they want to the OSS, since they have
>no legal license obligation back to Party A. Their access is provided
Yes, of course: the act of running the program is not restricted,
and the user only interfaces with it.
>through Party B. They co
Antoine Thomas dixit:
>A famous cartoon about coders and development is joking today about the
>right for coders to delete their personal data in a project, because of
IIRC the GDPR/DSGVO has an exception for things the author published
themselves. An OSS contribution can be considered publicatio
John Dupuy dixit:
> Is this the best way to word it?
It looks good to me, but IANAL either.
> Does the URL work, or should I insert the MIT license itself?
The MIT licence itself requires others who distribute the work to
include a copy of the licence, so, to easen their job, you really
should
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
