Hi Nicholas,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:44 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> 3.1. Permissions Granted
> Conditioned on compliance with section 4, and subject to the limitations
> of section 3.2, Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free,
> non-exclus
Hi Florian,
The CAL does not share the issue you identify with regard to the AGPL and
GPLv1. You said:
With that I do not mean the predominant use of the AGPL as a GPL
> variant for open-core business models, but that the AGPL requires to
> provide source code access over the network even if the
Hi John,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:57 PM John Cowan wrote:
> IANAL, but that doesn't look right to me. A contract to *do* something
> illegal is of course void, but a license term that says "This license is
> void if the licensee does something illegal" does not strike me as mere
> flatus vocis
Hello Coraline,
First, it is good that you are here on the mailing list and interacting
with some of the others who are in this space.
I wanted to comment on just two aspects of the below:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:34 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Drew DeVault wro
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> I think you have this backwards. The mailing list to discuss ideas
> compatable with the OSD are the lists hosted by opensource.org. This
> community will (most often politely) inform people when their ideas are
> incompatable with on
Hi Russell,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 9:36 AM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:21 PM VanL wrote:
>
>> Further, if we really believe in the importance of ideas, and the
>> importance of speech to express those ideas, even ones we disagree with, we
>&
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Free Software was developed
based upon a particular moral and ethical point of view. I also think you
are correct that the moral foundations of FOSS text to attract many people
with strong moral convictions.
That said, there is an essentia
Hi Russell,
Strong opinions can be expressed without sharp language. That doesn't mean
that we don't have strong opinions, or that we don't try to express them as
cogently and persuasively as we can. My point - or at least one of my
points - is that sharp language is usually less effective in bei
Having recently borne the brunt of a number of very pointed comments, both
on- and off-lis, I wanted to share a few thoughts about language and how we
react to people with different ideas.
1. We should start out from a stance where people should be free to express
their ideas. Absent evidence of
I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
that should probably be decertified.
On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
licenses - such as those identified via t
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:53 AM John Cowan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:21 AM VanL wrote:
>
>> But think about OSD #5, which prohibits discrimination against people or
>> groups, or OSD #6, prohibiting discrimination against fields of endeavor.
>> It is true that
Hello Eric,
This is an interesting contribution to the overall discussion. I like that
you are thinking about things in a way that is explicitly OSD-compliant,
while still trying to advance your goals.
My take is that such a Persona-Non-Grata License (PNGL) would probably not
be OSD-compliant, ev
e "widely." Which also means that leaving them alone will also have
> little impact.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602pam...@chesteklegal.com
> 919-800-8033www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On 2/8/20 9:38 AM, VanL wrote:
look for OSI, to suddenly pull the rug
> out.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pam...@chesteklegal.com
> 919-800-8033
> www.chesteklegal.com
> On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:
>
> With the mild proviso that th
It depends on what role the OSI is supposed to take. Is the OSI just the
FSF, but with different branding? Is the OSI just the recognizer and
rubber-stamper of existing practice?
No, the OSI is something different - it is a certifier. There is a
definition of "open source" and the OSI maintains it
[Responding on license-discuss]
I look forward to you endorsing the CAL, the ISC license, and MPL2 as the
only licenses necessary for anyone to use.
More seriously, is this the "only three licenses are necessary" argument,
or is there a different set? If so, why?
Thanks,
Van
On Wed, Sep 11, 201
Hi Bradley,
I appreciate your sharing here, especially as I have used the AGPL as both
a comparison point and a foil for the CAL.
A few brief points in response.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:49 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Affero GPL was a huge leap and a big change in copyleft policy. The FSF
>
Hi John,
Thanks for your input.
I'd be a little worried about what people might define as a "fix". Is
> there any opportunity there to shoehorn other things into that category
> / what's the check on that? Since many companies have over the years
> called things security fixes or bundled things
Hi Lukas,
Thanks for your reply. Based on your response, as well as the other
responses here, it seems like the structure of this clause is
non-problematic.
However:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:14 PM Lukas Atkinson
wrote:
> However, that 90 day window is awfully long... In the context of a sourc
ons, but by much more severe national
> law including consequences such as execution or imprisonment in the gulag.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:19 AM VanL wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:35 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:35 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> It might address the topic, but I have a really hard time wrapping
> my head around all the restrictions and terms used.
>
You mention that it must be necessary for people to get the patch. That is
this part:
> You may delay providing
Hello all,
The following caught my eye:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:09 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Incidentally works covered by the AGPL are being removed from a
> lot of institutions now due to the inability to deploy embargoed
> security fixes. This isn’t just a licence issue, but the ability
Hi Henrik,
There is a catch-22 here. I am trying to represent the law as I understand
it. When I was explicit about my understanding of the consequences of the
law, I was criticized for expressing it. Now, you criticize me for
vagueness. But if there is vagueness, it is because the law is vague.
Hi Henrik,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:16 AM Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
> Forgive me, but that is just a redundant statement that is legal weasel
> wording. You're essentially still saying that if an API could be protected
> by copyright, in some jurisdiction, then the CAL would still claim those
> rights
Hi Bruce,
>
> Haven't you just very clearly characterized this term as a use
> restriction? And doesn't this way of stating it make it very clear it's in
> contravention of OSD #6? It would certainly be a field of endeavor to run
> the program for anyone but yourself, or for anything but a private
Hi Roger,
Thanks for creating a specific hypothetical.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 10:56 PM Roger Fujii wrote:
>
> *So, let's concoct an example. I have an authentication db which has
> username/passwords. I have another separate db that has all sorts of data
> on the username. To get a username/pass
Hi Roger,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I'd disagree with this characterization:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:31 PM Roger Fujii wrote:
> Even more fundamentally than that is that this section does something that
> no open source license does (that I'm aware of anyway), which is to create
>
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:02 AM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
> Data autonomy
>
> Wrt the discussion of not encumbering mere use / private use with any
> obligations, I notice there's first of all a very explicit carve out for
> "your private purposes". Also the first
Hi Lukas,
Thanks for your comments.In general, the patent termination provision was
crafted to deal with the actual types of patent attacks I most usually see
around open source - a company, frequently an NPE, will assert a patent
against a large number of users of a common open source application
There is not a 1:1 correspondence between a tactic and a field of endeavor.
Otherwise, there is no rule - as you describe:
> We have the restrictions that achieve the purpose of Open Source, as
> stated by the definition, and we have *all other restrictions.* The OSD
> specifically says that dist
Hi Bruce,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:09 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> In a discussion like this, you can expect people to disagree, and to *continue
> *to disagree. It seems to me that if we are all going get along, the
> appropriate response to such disagreement is *not *to take a strident
> tone a
Hi Bruce,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:05 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> It looks like this is the main reason for objection:
>
> *No Withholding User Data*
>
> *Throughout any period in which You exercise any of the permissions
> granted to You
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:56 AM Richard Fontana
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:19 PM VanL wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, this has the effect of replacing the
> language in the earlier version that would have imposed copyleft
> obligations on APIs by
Hi McCoy,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>Can you explain why this is "problematic" in relation to OSD 9 please
> Richard? To my eyes the phrase "any modifications, elaborations, or
> implementations created by You that contain any licenseable >>portion of
> the Work
There has been a lot of noise on this list recently. Bumping this thread to
give anyone who wishes a chance to comment.
Thanks,
Van
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:18 PM VanL wrote:
> Subject: Cryptographic Autonomy License Beta 2
>
> Thanks again to the license-review committee for the re
Subject: Cryptographic Autonomy License Beta 2
Thanks again to the license-review committee for the response to Beta 1. I
have reworked the CAL to remove the reasons for rejection and to address
some of the concerns that led into the “further discussion” items. I have
also privately discussed thes
Hello Alexander,
1. You mistake recission for termination; they are different.
2. The license should be evaluated as a unilateral contract, which allows
the construction in the CAL.
Thanks,
Van
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.open
Alexander, McCoy,
I stand corrected.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:25 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> Whether or not specific performance vs damage is an “important question”
> in open source, I question, but it would probably be more useful to the
> list if those issues were tied to a particular open so
Hello Alexander,
It is clear that you have a lot of passion for topics around software
licensing, which I certainly won't disagree with. However, it is very
difficult to identify your specific points.
This particular list is for discussion of particular licenses being
proposed or evaluated for ac
void.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1442. A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted
> against the party for whose benefit it is created.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> Am Mi., 24. Juli 2019 um 03:54 Uhr schrieb VanL :
>
>> Various individuals at my client, including
Various individuals at my client, including Arthur, are reviewing a second
draft of the CAL before it is widely shared. When they ate done with their
review, the new draft will be posted here.
As for Arthur, it is his prerogative to join or not join any discussion he
would like. He is definitely a
Hi Russell,
Thank you! I appreciate your patient responses to my various questions.
This was very helpful for me in helping pin down your objection. While we
may not agree on all the points, it is important for me to understand each
objection to the CAL so as to see if I can respond to it in some
Hi Russell,
Thanks for your further explanation. There is a lot in your post to unpack,
but I would like to address one baseline issue first.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:57 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM VanL wrote:
>
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>
Hi Russell,
You seem to be arguing about a point that no one is making.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 11:59 AM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
>
> If I am a user of landscaping services, and the company providing that
> landscaping service happens to use Microsoft Office, I am not through some
> transitive pr
Hi Larry,
Just making sure I understand:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I again plead with OSI, regardless of what the Supreme Court does with the
> Oracle v. Google case, that OSI never again approve an open source license*
> that purports to impede in any way by copyr
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:13 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
>> If 'software freedom' means 'freedom for software end users (sometimes
>> known as human beings)', then
>>
>
> If I hire a landscaping company, and that company happens to use Microso
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 2:51 PM VanL wrote:
> All it says is that if a third party owns data that is processed by
> CAL-licensed software, you have to give that third party the ability to get
> a copy back.
>
And just so the actual scope is not further misconstrued, you only have
Two points. First, and most importantly:
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I don't believe that FSF has ever made any statement in favor of
> encumbering the data processed by their programs. I don't believe they
> will. And I don't believe that encumbering user data is in any way a step
> *forward
> *for t
Hi Christine,
Don't paint with too broad a brush. I understand your concern - open source
is not a business plan! - but there are businesses and business plan that
are fully aligned with the goals of the community.
Thanks,
Van
__
Van Lindberg
van.lindb...@gmail.com
m: 214
Respectfully, I disagree. The purposes of the OSI, per the bylaws, are:
Section 2. *SPECIFIC PURPOSES.* Within the context of the general purposes
stated above, this corporation shall: (1) educate the public about the
advantages of open source software; (2) encourage the software community to
part
Regarding SAS v WPL: This is good, suggestive case law for the point at
issue, but I don't think it is dispositive. It clearly protects reverse
engineering a file format or programming system. But this is the part that
I am still nervous about:
The CJEU pointed out that if a third party procured t
Raising this comment to a new thread.
Many of the things we are discussing could be resolved, or at least helped,
by elevating certain interpretive principles as "canons of construction"
that would guide analysis. This approach does not require amending the OSD
directly, but instead creating a bod
Quick clarification:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Christine Hall
wrote:
> I don't see how this is similar at all to requiring the user to make
> data collected by an application available.
>
It is narrower than that. The specific term in the CAL doesn't cover all
data collected by an applicat
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:44 PM Christine Hall
wrote:
>
> On 7/2/19 2:37 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > I think a better analogy would be the inclusion of the Installation
> > Information requirement in the *GPLv3 family of licenses. That imposes
> > an obligation to provide data which is potentiall
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API
> >> (n
Hi Pam,
A second comment:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:55 PM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> As to "where in the OSD," I disagree with your framing that every
> license must be approved unless we can point to a specific rule broken.
> "Out of scope" is a valid reason; that is one reason why the human
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API
> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does
> not fit this definition (even if it would fit the folk notion of
> derivative work that the fre
Hi Pam,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:55 PM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> But I don't see an analogy for
> database/data rights; I don't see how data portability affects the use
> of the software. You're using copyright as a mechanism to achieve a
> purpose different from ensuring the right to use/modif
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:46 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[trim lots of Java]
> Let’s make a Java™ source file out of this, which will then be
> comprised of solely the API description, but no creative parts yet:
[trim more Java]
You just put your finger on the issue: Are APIs creative in a copy
Hi Pam,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:53 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> Van, I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't answer the same
> question as "is it open source"? Add to that the interesting possibility
> that currently-existing licenses will now reach beyond what everyone
> thought their
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:07 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> But leaving that aside, I would argue that this section, if activated
> by "the original copyright holder", transforms GPLv2 into a
> non-open-source, and indeed non-free-software, license.
>
I see and understand your polic
Hi Bruce,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM VanL wrote:
>
>> As argued by the FSF FAQ <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html>,
>> the inclusio
Hi Christine,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:42 AM Christine Hall
wrote:
> I understand that. However, it seems to me that requirement would be
> outside the scope of an open source software license. As has been
> pointed out, ownership of the data and the requirement to return it or
> not is already
Hi McCoy,
With regard to most software licensing, including FOSS licensing, network
interaction is not an issue.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>As soon as the employee has an individual license to the modified work,
> the game is up; no other restrictions can be
Hi McCoy, great question.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>For example: I am a corporation, running modified AGPL software, in a
> way that is only accessible to my employees. Per the AGPL, I must give my
> employees code and rights to the modified version, even though the
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:42 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> How does the AGPL fail? The right to run unmodified software has no
> burdens in the AGPL. But there is with CAL, the burden of providing data.
>
The AGPL fails, in part, because there is no private right of use for a
modified version.
F
I think that the points that Bruce makes are valid. I personally considered
"public performance" to be nicely tailored to the intended scope. But if
that is what is objectionable, why not:
If You exercise any permission available under the copyright law, patent
law, or database protection laws app
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:55 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> 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 collec
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> [snip bit about synthetic performance right in AGPL]
>
> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the software without the licensee
> having an obligation. Is it a princi
There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue that APIs are
not protectable under any IP law. They may be protectable under copyright
law, under patent law, or both. So 1) What is licenseable about an API
under copyright law? and 2) What is licenseable about an API under patent
law?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Pamela Chestek
> wrote:
>
>> I assume you mean the AGPL, but only if the software has been modified.
>> Under the CAL, one cannot simply run the softw
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise has *no* Title 17
> protections to foreign and domestic recipients, under contractual terms.
> I’m told these have held up in court, though I admit to not having a
> citation handy.
>
>
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:42 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> *>>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
> *>>
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:51 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>Thank you for restating the underlying disagreement on the same false
> pretense. Governments are subject to a plethora of different regulations
> and laws than commercial actors. To claim or presume there are no
> requirements unique to G
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:36 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org):
>
> > The deep [patent] threat comes from third parties, which is a risk
> > that neither ther the licensor nor the licensee can reasonably
> > mitigate.
>
> [snip]
> I _would_ join everyone in calling that
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> *>>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
>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>Right now, if a license is certified once, even if not currently
> recommended, it is still Open Source. I think a deprecation policy would be
> helpful, but the OSI does not currently have one.
>
>
>
> OSI does have a deprecation (“retireme
Hi Nicholas,
Let me start by explaining my mental model: "Open Source" is basically like
the "UL" mark for electronics. It is a certification made by a third party
(here the OSI) that a certain product (the software) conforms to certain
standards in terms of what is included in it (only software u
I was just going to move this to L-D, and I see that Luis beat me to the
punch.
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 10:59 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> I can't find the tweet but on Twitter recently Van Lindberg expressed
> the view that for distros like Debian or Fedora, the only portions of
> them that can
Hi Patrick,
It has to do with the difference between a license and a contract. See
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship
for a discussion.
Thanks,
Van
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@
Hi Henrik,
Thanks again for your comments. They have been helpful in making sure that
the scope of the CAL is clearly communicated.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:27 AM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
> It's IMO regrettable that the goal of the CAL isn't to protect the entire
> scope of GDPR personal data (in
Regarding PEPs, the process relative to the CAL is not too far off from a
PEP-like process. Each PEP has one or more authors and champions - in this
case me. The PEP itself is essentially a long-form summary of the proposal,
subsequent discussion and decisions, and
Ordinarily, there are three main
[Initially replied just to Henrik; resending to whole list. Thanks,
Henrik, for catching that!]
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:47 PM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
>
> - Protection of User Data
>> The protection of User Data portion is a limitation on the grant to the
>> licensee, not a grant of rights to a th
un, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:35 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM VanL wrote:
>
>> I agree with you on this one. However, the phrasing of this particular
>> element was important to my client. I did try to make sure that the
>> broader language (as you sug
I think it gets back to the core purpose of the OSI: To be a steward for
the OSD and to certify licenses as compliant with the OSD. There are many
other good things the OSI *can* do, but that is the one thing it *must* do.
So how does that get back to L-D and L-R? Well, the OSI board is not
compos
See the few references I added in response to your first message. I believe
the ultimate source n the US is the 1976 act + CONTU recommendations that
were enacted into law, but I would have to double check. Note that one of
the references is a WIPO publication, referring to international law.
Than
Hello Bruce,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:17 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> *As reigning honcho of the Open Source Initiative, I have come to oppress
> your license :-)*
>
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
>
> *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public
> performance right f
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for the commentary!
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:47 PM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
>
> *About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:*
>
> It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third
> parties. This is also novel, isn't it? Potential OSD issues come to mind
Hmm. I know a bit about the PEP process. It does seem like it would be a
valuable example to follow.
Thanks,
Van
__
Van Lindberg
van.lindb...@gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 7:54 PM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Sullivan w
I have mentioned some time back that I was working on a new strong network
copyleft license. The result is the Cryptographic Autonomy License, which I
described at CopyleftConf. I wrote up an explainer laying out the legal
rationales behind the CAL:
https://www.processmechanics.com/2019/03/15/the
FYI, I am on record as agreeing with you on this point - I wrote about it
in my book in the context of feeling that some GPL advocates and the GPL
FAQ stretched the bounds of copyright too far - thus creating a negative
policy outcome even while trying to do something good for the GPL.
However, in
t; Also, almost trivially compared to the above issue, this obviously
> violates OSD #9.
>
> So, unfortunately I really have to recommend in the strongest way that a
> license incorporating that term not be approved.
>
> Sorry
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 20
such a provision
> by approving a license containing it.
>
>
>
> Also, almost trivially compared to the above issue, this obviously
> violates OSD #9.
>
>
>
> So, unfortunately I really have to recommend in the strongest way that a
> license incorporating that term
ia License-discuss
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:16:04AM -0600, VanL wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source
> > license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth
> > internall
Hello all,
I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source
license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth
internally for a little while and we will shortly be putting out a draft
for public comment. After the public comment period, we will be submitting
95 matches
Mail list logo
