On 3/31/20 9:13 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:08 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
wrote:
The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been approved
recently.
You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices contained in
the Source Code
On 3/31/20 1:13 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> FWIW, if you take out the badgeware part of AAL, you're left with nothing
> much that's different from, say, BSD (upon which AAL is based). There is
> paragraph 4, but I'm not sure that's adds anything to straight 3-clause BSD.
> So I'm not sure what would b
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:09 AM
> To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
> Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
>
&g
On 3/31/20 8:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> It would be bad form to use the same name though. But as a fallback
> option I could of course submit for review a new license that was based
> on AAL but with a new name.
>
Why? I don't see how an original license author has any moral right to
the name.
It would be bad form to use the same name though. But as a fallback option
I could of course submit for review a new license that was based on AAL but
with a new name.
My Permissive Attribution License (MyPAL)
henrik
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/30/20 5:17 AM, Henr
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:08 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
wrote:
>
> The alternative license besides AAL could be the CAL1.0 that has been
> approved recently.
>
> > You must retain all licensing, authorship, or attribution notices contained
> > in the Source Code (the “Notices”), and provide al
> *If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need
not make them do so.*
I never read GPL in this detail though and its interesting, but thos
On 3/30/20 5:17 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
>
> I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be
> for someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
>
We can notify the original author, but we don
These are good questions and will be interesting to discuss if the group
does decide to take on creating an AAL 2.0.
Thank you for sharing the article, it's an interesting read!
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:06 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> What you are looking for is a mandatory, legally enforcea
On 3/30/20 8:59 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Assuming this is the same person https://github.com/edsuom
> it is interesting that his present-day code is apparently all released
> under the Apache License 2.0.
Yeah, that was the first thing I looked at when I remarked that the
license didn't have s
What you are looking for is a mandatory, legally enforceable, "powered by"
visual indicator to exist when "the software" is run. You also wish that
license to be approved by the OSI as Open Source. While I can't and don't
speak for the OSI, I don't consider what you are looking for to be open
sour
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fontana
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:59 AM
> To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
> > Originally written
ense-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
>
>
>
> > Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
>
>
>
> I personally think so. I expect the next step in this p
: [License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS
> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be for
someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
hen
Hi Russell,
Thank you for your response!
It's clear we're approaching this from different perspectives, I think the
best next step is to work towards an AAL 2.0 which will enable more shared
code AND better licenses.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:24 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
> their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'. I'd
> argue in practice man
> Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
I personally think so. I expect the next step in this process would be for
someone to find the original author of the AAL to discuss this option.
henrik
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:38 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> Understood, I think then we're
Understood, I think then we're in agreement then :)
Do you think an updated AAL could comply with the OSD?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:07 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> I was responding to your more general question "Do you believe a
> developer should have the option to share their code without fe
I was responding to your more general question "Do you believe a
developer should have the option to share their code without fearing a
competitor will use their code against them?". That was not specific
to any attribution requirement or place of the attribution.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:46 AM H
Hi Kevin,
Adding an attribution (for example in the page footer) doesn't prevent a
business from reselling the app, it just makes it less likely they'll want
to.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with
> the
Developers do have that option, but that option is not compliant with
the OSD (since that is explicitly discrimination against a specific
field of endeavor), and thus any license which provides that feature
is not OSD-compliant. The feature you are asking for is the same core
feature of the Commons
Hi Henrik,
Thank you as well! I appreciate that everyone here is just trying to
determine what's best for OSS as a whole.
> The specific text of the AAL that is problematic...
100% agreed, the current AAL license is outdated to the point where it
doesn't make sense any more. We chose it because
Hi Hillel
First of all, thanks for taking the time to join this discussion. A key
question for us is whether and how we can find projects using a license
that is being suggested for removal / de-certification. It's encouraging to
see news about this discussion reached you and you we willing to eng
Thanks for your email! Can we try approaching it from a different
perspective...
Do you believe a developer should have the option to share their code
without fearing a competitor will use their code against them?
This is from the FAQ on opensource.org: "But depending on the license, you
probably
Thanks for your feedback!
> If something in the code requires a license key or payment in order to
function,
> then the code is not open source, it is proprietary.
With the AAL license we add a "Powered by.." message in the footer, all of
the app's functionality is enabled. We offer a license key
I would also like to have AAL 2.0 license.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:40 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> An AAL 2.0 license sounds great, thank you for the clarification!
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:25 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/20 7:01 AM, Hillel Coren wrote:
>> > It's easy to assume that
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:41, Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
wrote:
> Regarding ALL
>
> Josh claims that there is no repository on github
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/021667.html
>
> But the
> https://github.com/search?q=attribution+assurance
On Sunday 29 March 2020 16:01, Hillel Coren wrote:
> I think the larger point here is keeping a distinction been OSS and FOSS.
> Our app is OSS but it isn't free
Then it is not Open Source Software.
Open Source Software is by definition also Free Software.
The major difference is the focus on what
Regarding ALL
Josh claims that there is no repository on github
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/021667.html
But the https://github.com/search?q=attribution+assurance+license&type=Code
gives
me so many respostiores and I beleive AAL is widely
*AAL
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:35 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
arsa...@buddyexpress.net> wrote:
> Regarding ALL
>
> Josh claims that there is no repository on github
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/021667.html
>
> But the
> https://githu
An AAL 2.0 license sounds great, thank you for the clarification!
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:25 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/29/20 7:01 AM, Hillel Coren wrote:
> > It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> > developers will either choose a different OSI approved license
On 3/29/20 7:01 AM, Hillel Coren wrote:
> It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
> their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'.
> I'd argue in practice many developers (
Hi again,
To follow up on my email yesterday... to start there many AAL projects on
GitHub.
https://github.com/search?q=attribution+assurance+license&type=Code
I think the larger point here is keeping a distinction been OSS and FOSS.
Our app is OSS but it isn't free. App development is expensive
33 matches
Mail list logo
