Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:40 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > > We've drafted the guidelines below, > which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a > license will be approved only if it conforms to the Open Source > Definition and provides software freedom. Thanks to those who comme

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

, December 28, 2018 at 12:04 PM To: "license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> " mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process Regarding "consideration": T

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

behalf of "lro...@rosenlaw.com" Reply-To: "lro...@rosenlaw.com" , "license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" Date: Friday, December 28, 2018 at 12:04 PM To: "license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision pro

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

uot; in U.S. and U.K. law. /Larry From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Bruce Perens Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:38 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process We went over this in Jacobsen v. Katzer. I testified (

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

We went over this in Jacobsen v. Katzer. I testified (and the court agreed) that there _was_ consideration in Open Source licenses, although it was non-monetary. Thanks Bruce On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:39 AM Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > One of my colleagues (who strongly prefers public dom

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

One of my colleagues (who strongly prefers public domain dedications and permissive licenses) recently indicated to me that in his opinion as a software author, the obligation to distribute source code qualified as 'consideration', since it requires a tangible (to some degree) action on the part of

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

* Lawrence Rosen: > But let us nevertheless agree on a pragmatic definition of "open > source software". > “Open source software” means software actually distributed under terms > that grant a copyright and patent license from all contributors to the > software for every licensee to access and us

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

(Private response) I think I mean something that can reasonably *be valued as money by the > original licensor*, even if in bitcoins or future promised revenue (or " > peppercorns " <-- > follow that link). > In Ellis Peters's mystery novel _The R

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

eviewers can ask for clarification and rewording. The sharing of open source software among users worldwide is consideration enough for all of us to enforce our licenses! /Larry From: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:42 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; licens

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com): > > > The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" > > that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom > > is mostly philosophica

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

alculate the actual value of any such pleasure. /Larry From: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock mailto:nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:37 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@lists.

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

tion as its own reward, even though there is no way to calculate the actual value of any such pleasure. /Larry From: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:37 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com): > The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" > that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom > is mostly philosophical. But the possibility of licenses no longer > being "Open

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Note: a highly literalist reading might also exclude CPOL, because it requires that a distributing licensee must ensure that recipients agree to the license, which could be another "other consideration." -Nick From: Lawrence Rosen Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:09 AM Subject: R

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Larry, As far as I am aware, where the previous OSI board has worst "screwed up" has been in accepting crayon licenses that can be harmful to the community (my favorite is the SIL Open Font license, which I contend allows third parties to place a font in the public domain). The OSD would not, on i

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:17 AM Subject: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process (Just speaking for myself here) However, the limits of the OSD as a self-sufficient test are becoming more evident. I am concerned about efforts to "game" the OSD, or reduce it to a narro

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Richard Fontana wrote: > I can easily come up with hypothetical licenses that would seem not to fail a highly literalist reading of the OSD, but which historically would never have been *treated* as conforming to the OSD, because of an obvious failure of the license to provide software freedom as

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 03:42:08PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote: > (1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"? > (2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would > apply" (either explicitly or implicitly), does the board plan to talk with > FSF about mergin

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process [EXTERNAL] (1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"? (2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would apply" (either explicitly or implicitly),

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

(1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"? (2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would apply" (either explicitly or implicitly), does the board plan to talk with FSF about merging license lists and review processes? If not, why not? On Thu, Dec

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Bruce Perens wrote: > It's nice that the purpose is acknowledged to be "software freedom". However, > people wanting a programatic definition of that will be disappointed. I agree. You did much cleaner defining job with the OSD, and thanks for that! But let us nevertheless agree on a prag

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no > On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:57 AM, Bruce Perens wrote: > > It's nice that the purpose is acknowledged to be "software freedom". However, > people wanting a programatic definition of that w

Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

It's nice that the purpose is acknowledged to be "software freedom". However, people wanting a programatic definition of that will be disappointed. Thanks Bruce On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:41 PM Richard Fontana < richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote: > At a recent meeting, the OSI Board d

[License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

At a recent meeting, the OSI Board discussed requests to clarify the license approval process (documented at https://opensource.org/approval). We've drafted the guidelines below, which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a license will be approved only if it conforms to the Ope