On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:30 PM Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> You would be assuming wrong. UIRC-GSA Holdings Inc. v. William Blair & Co.,
> L.L.C., No. 15-CV-9518, 2017 WL 1163864, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2017)
> (bond offering documents copyrightable); Homeowner Options for Mass. Elders,
> Inc.
08 AM
> >>To: mas...@opensource.org <mailto:mas...@opensource.org>;
> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> <mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>
> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses
>
> >>For example, for the M
se-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
>
> >
>>-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
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> I don't mean to be abrasive here, but this thread demonstrates one of
> the problems with the license-discuss/review mailing lists. It's not
> unique to these lists, but solving it requires discipline.
>
> Please try to stay on topic. Patr
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:27 PM Patrick Masson wrote:
> We would like to add the following information to each license page:
>
> - License Copyright: [Name of person/organization who submitted the license,
> and year submitted]
Patrick, I would suggest: (1) keeping the submitter of the license
I don't mean to be abrasive here, but this thread demonstrates one of
the problems with the license-discuss/review mailing lists. It's not
unique to these lists, but solving it requires discipline.
Please try to stay on topic. Patrick started this thread with a very
straightforward request for lic
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:11 AM James wrote:
FWIW, I only consider about five different licenses for new projects.
> Not because they're necessarily better than OSL (I never investigated
> that deeply) but because I am against license proliferation, and the
> existing five are good enough.
I ha
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:47 AM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I realize most of you don't give a damn about the OSL license, but anyway
> that is what it says. Now, as I told Bruce Perens privately, I've resigned
> myself to being ignored on this OSI list. Bruce replied:
>
> Yes, but you project your
licenses. There are many others Thanks for collecting and organizing this
information, Patrick.
/Larry
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of John Cowan
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:42 PM
To: mas...@opensource.org; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss]
The licenses of the GPL and LGPL are embedded in them: "Everyone is
permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document,
but changing it is not allowed." That's to prevent creating a twisty maze
of licenses, all different.
The same is true of the Eclipse PL: "The Agreemen
-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
All,
We recently received a question asking, "What are the licenses for the
OSI approved license texts themselves?"
Currently the OSI website, including the pages with license text,
states,
"The content on this website, of which Opensource.org is the author, is
licensed under a Creative Commons
13 matches
Mail list logo
