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

On 8/23/2019 1:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Roger Fujii wrote: > Now I'm confused.    Are you saying there is no "fair use" when the target is software?   While one can weaken" fair use" via the license, is this a good idea for OSI to support this? Fair use always remains a legitimate defens

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

.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:35 PM Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: I appreciate your discussion of preferred policies, but that has nothing to do with license-discuss@. I'll cl

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

alf Of Roger Fujii Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:17 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License On 8/21/2019 7:33 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:35 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > I appreciate your discussion of preferred policies, but that has nothing > to do with license-discuss@. > I'll clarify why I disagree, since the conversion has gone off in some interesting directions. a) Drawing a line between the inter

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

On 8/21/2019 7:33 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, for her own private purposes? Or,

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

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

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

On Thursday 22 August 2019 20:55, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Some Free Software has a requirement to pass the modifications along to the > recipient if you distribute the work, but never “back”. This is crucial, see > above That was my point. Heh, :-) Reading my post again I se I should have put

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

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

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

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 00:18 Howard Chu wrote: > I don't believe this test is conclusive. Sending modifications back to the > code's original author doesn't immediately publish them. "Original author" is frought. We've seen a number of licenses that privilege this hypothetical person. None of th

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

On Thursday 22 August 2019 06:17, Howard Chu wrote: > The requirement to send modifications back doesn't prevent anyone from using > the code. You > could call it best-effort, or at earliest opportunity. If you only modify and keep the modifications in-house (in your own systems, whether it's ho

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

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > 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 a

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

Russell, what you said is not true in the United States. I dare not speak to Canadian law. Russell wrote: * What is the purpose of the copying or modification of the work. If the modifying is for making software compatible with other software, that is already an enumerated exception in Ca

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:39 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about > copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private > party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, > for her own private

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

> > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in > > and protection of culture and science in article 27 seem

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

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

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

Russell, please clarify something for me about your opinion about copyright policy: Is any license whatsoever required in order for a private party to copy or modify a work of software, that it has obtained somehow, for her own private purposes? Or, in your view, is at least a minimal license re

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

On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 19:59:03 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > > to > > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > > much? >

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

On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 22:07:28 CEST Michael Downey wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, at 12:22, Howard Chu wrote: > > Article 27: > > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life > > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific > > advancem

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:16 PM Howard Chu > wrote: > > Fwiw, most of the free software I released in the 1980s, before GPL > existed, had the clause > "You are free to use this software but any modifications/corrections/bug > fixes

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:16 PM Howard Chu wrote: > Fwiw, most of the free software I released in the 1980s, before GPL > existed, had the clause > "You are free to use this software but any modifications/corrections/bug > fixes you make must > be sent back to me so they may be included in future

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:39 PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote: > > You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. Th

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am offended by any alleged legitimacy granted to the exclusive rights >> of softwa

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 15:22 Howard Chu wrote: > Russell McOrmond wrote: > When you benefit from Free software, you have an obligation to contribute > back, either through contributing > monetary support, or through labor - writing/updating documentation, > submitting bug reports, or even submitti

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

Hi all, On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, at 12:22, Howard Chu wrote: > Article 27: > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific > advancement and its benefits. > (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:23 PM Bruce Perens > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu > wrote: > > I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I > releas

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

> You are trying to state copyright law in reverse, presuming the right to > control culture and science is natural and any limitations on that (such as > the protection of privacy rights) is a restriction. The participation in and > protection of culture and science in article 27 seems prett

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:23 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu wrote: > >> I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I >> released for free, but >> would deny anyone else the benefit of improvements they make (privately >> or not)

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:16 AM Howard Chu wrote: > I am offended by the notion that someone may benefit from code that I > released for free, but > would deny anyone else the benefit of improvements they make (privately or > not) to my code. Ignoring Howard's return umbrage, isn't this a vali

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

Russell McOrmond wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > to > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > much? > Why your fixation on "compensa

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > > I am offended by any alleged legitimacy granted to the exclusive rights of > software authors being allowed to regulate private activities. > Try to maintain a collegial tone. You could as well say that you feel very strongly about the

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

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available > to > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so > much? > Why your fixation on "compensation"? > I am offended by any alleged legiti

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

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 04:33:25 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > > > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not > > > > to > > > > > write

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

Thanks for the clarification. I simply reacted to your saying that private modifications are not necessarily protected by OSD-compliant licenses. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Perens wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Cowan wrote: > >> I think that OSD #3 does exactly that.

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Cowan wrote: > I think that OSD #3 does exactly that. "The license must allow > modifications and derived works [...]" A license that even conditionally > forbids those activities is not, on my reading, an open source license. > But of course we are not tal

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: The OSD rules don't protect your private activities from the terms of Open > Source licenses. > I think that OSD #3 does exactly that. "The license must allow modifications and derive

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:15 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > a) whether these restrictions of private activities should be considered > consistent with the OSD. > The OSD rules don't protect your private activities from the terms of Open Source licenses. > b) whether, separately from the OSI or o

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond < > russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that offends you? >> > > Obviously,

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

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond wrote: > Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that offends you? > Obviously, the act which would offend many reasonable software developers who place reciprocal terms upon their works is not your typing. It is your creation of

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

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not > to > > write some specific software, does that constitute a restriction on the > > source code of t

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

On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:44 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is > > primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions placed > > upon > > source code

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

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:44 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is > primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions placed > upon > source code (and after that about minimizing restrictions placed on > users); > all

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

Disregarding the specifics of any particular license: In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions placed upon source code (and after that about minimizing restrictions placed on users); allowing someo

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

I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt to restrict private modification. Many countries are starting to recognise the harm of claiming restrictions on private copying under copyright, so this reads as an attempt to circumvent in contract law a limitation or excep

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

2019 12:45 PM > >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source > >>> License > >>> If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize. > > > > IMHO the mailing l

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

son for anyone to spend the time given these > > issues seem to persist as your drafts continue to evolve. > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > > [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz > > Maxeiner Sent

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

uss-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 > >>License > >> > >&g

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

-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License >>> If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize. > IMHO the mailing list is for discussing issues with existing OSI approved > licenses, or other issues r

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]

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

reason for anyone to spend the time given these issues seem to > persist as your drafts continue to evolve. > > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17

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

l Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License > >

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

ssage- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License Due to the acronym clash I

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

Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from Contribution Public License (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL). I've also slightly reordered the license text for (what I think makes for) easier reading. Attached in plaintext is the new draft. Thanks for your time, Moritz On Saturday, 3 August 20