* Lawrence Rosen:
> So, if our community can come up with an adequate definition of
> "corresponding source" (or "intimacy") in the open source software context
> to enforce the intent of our network services copyleft licenses, I'm all
> ears. Neither SSPL nor AGPL currently meet that clarity requ
.org/licenses/by/4.0/>
CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.
From: Bruce Perens
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:04 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:02
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:02 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Or understand and accept that *Open Source Software* is more than the GPL
> and recommend other approved open source licenses instead of the GPL.
>
I know you're bothered that more people don't use the OSL. However, the
proposals we've been
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Unfortunately, a lot of what the companies want to do can't be achieved as
> Open Source, and it is best that all sides understand that and go on.
Or understand and accept that Open Source Software is more than the GPL and
recommend other approved open source licenses i
> for MySQL.
Oops. MariaDB. Monty.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:57 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. The other is a commercial motivation to construct license terms that
>> are p
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> 2. The other is a commercial motivation to construct license terms that
> are permissive enough to get attention and adoption by curious (employed)
> developers, but "threatening" enou
Bruce,
My read is that there are two motivations to the copyleft license.
1. The purist motivation is based on the ideal that there should be no
proprietary code (or at least that users of someone else's code should have
access to that code as a sort of "right to repair" as expressed by the four
fr
lem for networked software.
The letters "GPL" aren't the entire answer.
/Larry
From: Bruce Perens
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 12:30 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Gil Yehuda wrote:
> > I wondered why we don't have an A/LGPL (or A/MPL, A/EPL) that addresses
> the "non-conveyed software gap" but also limits the scope of copyleft to
> the work itself.
>
>
>
> We do. OSL 3.0.
>
This is missing the point
ss On Behalf
Of Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:47 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Cc: Gil Yehuda
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
(Forgive the resend, my email address changed).
A license with parameters
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:48 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> (Forgive the resend, my email address changed).
>
> A license with parameters such that end users are advised to first engage
> a legal expert to help craft a usage architecture, seems t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:00 AM John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> It's not fair to blame FSF for what the court did in an entirely unrelated
>> case.
>>
>
> On the contrary, alas. The FSF's GPL FAQ says:
>
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-l
(Forgive the resend, my email address changed).
A license with parameters such that end users are advised to first engage a
legal expert to help craft a usage architecture, seems to be lacking
completion. Licenses should speak for themselves. I'm glad there is a
community of informed lawyers I can
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Bruce Perens wrote:
It's not fair to blame FSF for what the court did in an entirely unrelated
> case.
>
On the contrary, alas. The FSF's GPL FAQ says:
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication
> mechanisms normally used between tw
.
Speaking for myself,
Nigel
From: Bruce Perens mailto:br...@perens.com>>
Date: Tuesday, Jan 22, 2019, 11:18 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss
Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net):
> On Tuesday 22 January 2019 21:31, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> > My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue,
> > I apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of
> > the list.
>
> Th
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
> nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
> > to clarify this section.
>
> Nobody will ever make such a statement
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:14 PM John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> As far as I can tell, if I create a one-line shell script that pipes a
> proprietary program (say, Windows NET PRINT, whose output is not documented
> anywhere, I've just eyeballed it) i
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
People who write highly reciprocal licenses have, in general, reserved a
> territory for people who want to link proprietary software in the form of a
> different license: for FSF this is LGPL or GPL-with-exception. If you want
> to combine your
but not with words or
phrases that are vague and too broad. They should say precisely what they mean,
and what apparently you also mean. :-)
/Larry
From: Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:17 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [
Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:10 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
Oh, I could have so much fun with a question like that. But getting to the one
about licenses:
People who write
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:02 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> What particular architectural design do you recommend? I want an
> architecture that always permits a programmer to implement her own software
> in accordance with a published API, under any FOSS or proprietary license
> she chooses, and the
gt;
>
> Bravo to Nick! /Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss *On
> Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:23 PM
> *To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
>
>
>
mean so I know if I was a saint or a sinner.
Bravo to Nick! /Larry
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:23 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
Nobody will ever make su
Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier for
you to do things they don't want you to do.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
personal GitHub page as a one-time fork?
Thanks,
Nick
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:21 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source (SSPL and AGPL)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:32 PM Nicholas
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:32 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? My reading of section 6
> suggests that Corresponding Source must be conveyed under the terms of this
> License (e.g., GPLv3). Where does the lice
On Tuesday 22 January 2019 21:31, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue, I
> apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of the
> list.
This is a BAD idea!
Many of us disable redering of html for
My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue, I
apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of the list.
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I agree, it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of the intent
> of that paragraph in (A)GPLv3.
>
FSF in general does not make definitions because they wish to use the full
extent of
I agree, it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of the intent of
that paragraph in (A)GPLv3.
I've seen two very different concepts discussed in this thread.
On Sunday the 13th, Lukas discussed the idea that "intimate" communication is
in regards to distributing Corresponding Source,
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
>But I also understand and appreciate the MongoDB business case dilemma. If
>they just give their software away without some copyleft conditions for free
>network use, they will not profit much from it.
I don’t.
It’s possible to support a large enough company (I know of sev
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:02 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
What is the relevance of "convoluted interaction" and "deep knowledge," and
> why should open source licenses care about independent implementations
> regardless of their design for utility?
>
I think (but don't actually know) that it was int
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:31 AM
To: Gil Yehuda
Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open source
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:43 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > wrote:
First time posting to
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:43 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> First time posting to this group. I hope the subject line got you to read
> further. I'm not asking for legal advise, but posing a question about a
> phrase used in AGPL/GPL v3.0 and ho
The only part of the (A)GPLv3 that mentions “intimate” communication is the
definition of Corresponding Source, which clearly must include anything
needed to run the software. This is a discussion of *upstream*
dependencies! “Intimate data communication” is only used to explain when
the GPL-covered
This is very helpful, thank you.
I've viewed the process-space of a running process as the way to imagine
the technical boundary suggested by the license text. e.g. if after you
terminate process A, process B remains running, they might not be the same
Work. But when I came upon the phrase "intima
I'll echo Luis' comment there; a 'well-defined' interface which has
only one implementation in existence anywhere in the known universe
may very well *not* be a licensing boundary.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Luis Villa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan wrote:
>>
>>
>> O
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>> When I read this, I interpret *intimate data communication* as the
>> relationship between a database driver and a database.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
When I read this, I interpret *intimate data communication* as the
> relationship between a database driver and a database. That's the role of a
> driver -- to have intimate communication
40 matches
Mail list logo
