On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 6:07 AM John Cowan wrote:
> Well, that pretty much reflects the law: U.S. government employee work
> product *is* in the public domain in the U.S., and *isn't* in the public
> domain in other countries unless the foreign law makes it so.
>
I want to see the United States
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
No, I don't believe this is the problem. The problem is that the terms do
> pernicious things like attempt to limit the public domain to national
> boundaries with contractual terms. It's a terrible precedent for OSI to
> approve.
>
Well, that
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:02 PM VanL wrote:
>
>
> 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 tha
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> I really don’t want to relitigate this
>
Yeah. Before anyone misunderstands, I am not shouting at Nigel. I AM NOT
SHOUTING :-)
a) the terms that were deemed questionable existed in the already approved
> 1.3 and
>
The problem here is tha
source domain?
Because that strikes me as seriously unproductive.
From: John Cowan mailto:co...@ccil.org>>
Date: Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 6:20 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] The per se license const
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:05 AM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need
> for legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer
> in a specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to
> meet the r
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
license
approval is perceived to be unfair.
From: Bruce Perens mailto:br...@perens.com>>
Date: Friday, Mar 15, 2019, 4:32 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor
While we ar
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:59 AM Patrick Schleizer
wrote:
> I've seen that no is being evidence requested about legal review being
> actually done vs just claiming legal review was done.
>
In general we get to talk with the lawyer, and a lot of us on the list know
most of the lawyers who are like
; *>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* [License-discuss] The per se license constructor
>
>
>
> >>I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is
> entirely outside of the OSD.
>
>
>
> At the risk of arguing ag
Brendan Hickey:
> Perhaps legal review is there in part to raise the bar and filter out
> noise. In that case we're doing a disservice to submitters by providing
> feedback so late in the process.
Indeed. Paying for legal review and then have the license rejected for
another reason such as non-pro
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:41 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> *>>From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
> *>>Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM
> *>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> *>
If the barrier to entry of having a lawyer today is a big enough concern,
OSI could provide one, sort of like a public defender.
I suspect there could be a credible case that drafting a license and
promoting it for others to use is unlicensed practice of law.
__
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
>>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor
>>I thus fee
While we are discussing license approval, this morning's submission had no
legal review, the excuse being that it was a mashup of what was presumably
the work of unidentified lawyers.
There is great danger in using a license that has had no legal review,
since you have little idea of how it will w
15 matches
Mail list logo
