Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
> People who have asked questions of the list have certainly been told that,
> both explicitly and by implication ("well, it isn't written down anywhere
> else, so...") Usually politely, but polite terrible news is still terrible
> news.
That's regrettable and it
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:47 AM Rick Moen wrote:
By the way, Luis, has OSI ever _really_ advised newcomers to 'read the
> archives'? Certainly, speaking for myself, *I'd* never so recommend,
> for multiple reasons including that just never working.
>
People who have asked questions of the list
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
> The next step in the long run should be to figure out how to create
> authoritative summaries of license proposal discussions, so that newcomers
> and non-experts can reasonably and transparently understand OSI and OSD.
Along those lines, the occasional summarie
> The greatest threat to FLOSS is not an absence of software, but government
> regulation which contradicts the underlying policy goals of FLOSS.
>
> GOSS is different than other OSS not so much in that there is government
> specific policies within copyright/patent and other laws granting exc
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> Also, frankly, hasn't it been the case in practice that the OSD is
> broad, vague and in some places oddly-worded enough that it can also
> be criticized as facilitating arbitrary decisionmaking?
The OSD is a great expression of the prob
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
> Chris Webber actually gave a
> pretty candid explanation for the withdrawal
> (http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-February/001565.html),
> but I am not sure what value a summary of that explanation would h
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:47 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> From the updated https://opensource.org/approval:
> "the OSI determines that the license ... guarantees software freedom."
>
> I still have seen no coherent explanation of what software freedom means in
> the OSI context. Richard has asserted
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:03 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> Where there's been a substantial point made, I think the answer is probably
> yes - a concise and board-endorsed summary of the CC0 withdrawal, for
> example, would have been repeatedly useful to be able to point at over the
> years.
There
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:52 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
> In more recent times, but well before this change
> to the approval process, "software freedom" rhetoric has been
> especially emphasized publicly by people associated with the OSI, most
> notably Simon Phipps but I think also some past board
Quoting Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de):
> 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, …
Real-time collaborative Web-based editing is going to unavoi
Y'all have access to Firefox? Chromium?
IF you want a w3m compatible joint document editing program, you might be
out of luck, just saying...and telnet? Good one.
Chris
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:38 AM John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>
>> That wo
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> That works with almost no browsers. Not with lynx, links, links2, w3m,
> dillo, Arachne, …
>
... ssh, telnet, nc ...
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Most languages are dramatically underdescribed
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
As a side not, we (Google) open sourced etherpad of you're looking for
floss alternatives to joint editing. We also opensourced wave and within it
the operational transform that underlies Google docs and the rest.
Chris
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 01:47 Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 7:36
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:44 PM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> 3. My agenda is mostly limited to wishing that we have more GOSS.
>
It is interesting that the policy split within license-discuss is similar
to the split within goslingcommunity.org
There are those who are focused on the government
use/c
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 7:36 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:33 AM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments. Speaking entirely for myself here, I agree with
>> you. I hope everyone appreciates that this email was just a first step. We
>> are also aware t
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:47 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> From the updated https://opensource.org/approval:
> "the OSI determines that the license ... guarantees software freedom."
>
> I still have seen no coherent explanation of what software freedom means in
> the OSI context. Richard has asserted o
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:33 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Speaking entirely for myself here, I agree with
> you. I hope everyone appreciates that this email was just a first step. We
> are also aware that email sucks (I'm about to tear my hair out after only a
>
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:12 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
Speaking personally still (have I made that clear enough yet?), I am
> strongly opposed to any "because we say so" standard of license approval.
>
Indeed. As I have doubtless said before (one grows garrulous in one's old
age), lawyer say that
Hi Luis,
Thanks for the comments. Speaking entirely for myself here, I agree with
you. I hope everyone appreciates that this email was just a first step.
We are also aware that email sucks (I'm about to tear my hair out after
only a month of it, so I hear you) and will be working on a better
tooli
>>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] [
Hi, Pam, board-
Thanks for taking the time to write this down - I fully support the overall
direction of these changes, fully endorse almost all of these specific
changes, and greatly appreciate the effort it must have taken to put even
this modest proposal together.
One specific concern about th
Well, fortunately there is no great penalty for snobbery, or lightning
bolts would be striking from on high.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 9:39 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> 3. My agenda is mostly limited to wishing that we have more GOSS.
>
> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X
> they won’t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that
> provides X results in
ense-discuss@lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Evolving the License Review
process for OSI
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:31 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> I hope and believe that i have not engaged in any ad-hom attacks. If I have
> then I apologize.
>
>
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 9:52 AM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
Your assumption that vast hordes of developers aren't strongly
> pro-copyleft is also mistaken.
>
I don't know about hordes, but certainly the BSD and clang communities
(which overlap) tend to be so. One, certainly not the only, reason for
deve
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:31 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> I hope and believe that i have not engaged in any ad-hom attacks. If I have
> then I apologize.
>
> That said, I don’t believe that stating my perception that you two dominate
> the list is ad-hom.
>
Considering that one has been actin
Bruce Perens wrote:
> The fact is, you can do essentially all Open Source with three licenses, and
> two of them are very short. They are all compatible with each other, they all
> allow a passive user to do what they want without having a lawyer, and they
> are all protective of the developer
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> That said, I don’t believe that stating my perception that you two
> dominate the list is ad-hom.
>
Perhaps not, but I am really at a loss regarding what to do with "you
dominate the group". I am an assertive person who has domain experti
I hope and believe that i have not engaged in any ad-hom attacks. If I have
then I apologize.
That said, I don’t believe that stating my perception that you two dominate the
list is ad-hom.
My issue and frustration has been the lack of acceptance that GOSS has its own
needs and that special p
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:52 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
It's this fellows job to represent his employer to the best of his ability
> and to tell the story that is most advantageous to them. He is not under
> oath, and I don't believe that eve
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:07 AM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote:
> in the Board discussions about this communication no one ever said that
> there should be a limit on the number of emails and I expect no one ever
> will (or at least I would object to it). I know in an earlie
Larry, the standards engagement is off-topic for this list so I will do
this briefly. I resigned the position some time ago because of my job
change, and am waiting for someone whom OSI feels to be acceptable to step
into the role. Since this is about the patent issue, that may not be you.
The enga
On 5/25/2019 12:37 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> So, what I'm saying is, I _believe_ (correct me if I'm wrong) that l-d
> and l-r are operated Type A-style like most Mailman mailing lists,
Thanks for the clarification Rick, you are right, it is a Type A list
with "listadmin intervention."
Pam
Pamela Che
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
[snip]
> But now, perhaps, you can appreciate my disappointment when I first
> learned, several months ago, that you have been representing OSI in
> their open standards activities. There are several others on this list
> (including me) who are more k
Bruce, I am disappointed to hear your complaint about the recent changes to the
OSI license discussion and review process. I don't see that as an offense to
you. I am sorry you are taking it so poorly.
But now, perhaps, you can appreciate my disappointment when I first learned,
several mont
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:41 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> OSI is increasingly being pressured to adopt licenses with *a common
> anti-user theme. *As an individual, I believe it's important to push back
> against such licenses, and that they
On 5/24/19 9:15 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:
> The complaint which spurred this action was ad-hominem in nature, and
> this continues to be the case. Let's please not try to hide that it's
> directed squarely at me, except that we have just for the first time
> had Nigel complain that
The complaint which spurred this action was ad-hominem in nature, and this
continues to be the case. Let's please not try to hide that it's directed
squarely at me, except that we have just for the first time had Nigel
complain that Richard Fontana also dominated the mailing list in 2012.
Let's als
39 matches
Mail list logo
