t; Finally, a quick note on naming, there's already a CPL. Since you got
> > rid of the word "Contribute" maybe think of a new name for the license
> > with a unique set of initials.
>
> Makes sense, somehow I've missed the Common Public License, thanks, I
I've incorporated several new suggestions and attached the new draft as
plaintext.
- More verbose initial paragraph that's explicit about both copyright and
patent license grants
- copyright notice -> contributor notice
- "use or distribute this software with it" in clause 2 -> "use the hereby
nitials.
Makes sense, somehow I've missed the Common Public License, thanks, I'll have
to think of another name, then.
How about the "Sharing is Caring License" (SiCL)? No? I'll keep looking, then.
>
> Thank you,
> Nicholas Weinstock
Thanks for your feedback
nitials.
Thank you,
Nicholas Weinstock
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner
> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:40 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cont
On Monday, 5 August 2019 15:23:57 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote:
> You've added confusion with these two new paragraphs:
>
>You are granted a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive,
> no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except by not
> fulfilling the above obligations) copyright
You've added confusion with these two new paragraphs:
You are granted a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive,
no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except by not
fulfilling the above obligations) copyright license to use
and distribute this software without restrictio
(Hopefully replying to my sent mail works and doesn't start a new thread)
I've incorporated most suggestions (commit 848faa0 in the previously linked to
GitHub repository) and attached the new draft as both plaintext and universal
diff from previous plaintext.
- conditions -> obligations
- at l
Thank you for your feedback.
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 19:49:18 CEST Lukas Atkinson wrote:
> I have two concerns about this license:
>
> 1. it seems to disallow private modification and compel disclosure.
Yes, that is intentional.
> Even if this didn't fail the desert island test, it would be im
I have two concerns about this license:
1. it seems to disallow private modification and compel disclosure. Even if
this didn't fail the desert island test, it would be impossible to comply
because there's no time frame within which a change must be published. Then
again, publication is only neces
Thanks for the suggestions. If I were to adopt them I think I can
go a bit further and shorten clause 2 to this (or do you see any issue with
removing the "as follows" part?):
2. License each change you make to this software under this license,
publish it through a freely accessible distributi
I would not use the word 'Contribute' in clause 2, but instead use the
word 'Publish'. 'Contribute' implies more than just publication, at
least in common usage in the open source world. In addition, there is
no need to specify "to the public" in the requirement of applying this
license to changes;
11 matches
Mail list logo
