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
> *>>Subject:* [License-discuss] The per s
Hi all -
Lots of great discussion here. Responding to a bunch of different messages:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:37 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Ben Hilburn wrote:
>
>> it's important and good to say, "the process is open and anyone can
>> contribute," but that doesn
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
A message of mine didn't went through to license-review. No
notification. I guess it hit the spam filter or something. To ask about
it, I wanted to mail the moderator.
Looked up:
https://opensource.org/codeofconduct
https://opensource.org/lists
> Moderators: You can reach the list moderators (L
Quote GPLv3:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
> add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
> that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> [...]
>
> f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors
I just noticed that I mistakenly sent this only to Luis but intended
it for the list as a reply to this thread. Sorry!
-- Forwarded message -
From: Richard Fontana
Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review]
Approval: Server
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:21 PM Rick Moen wrote:
>
> I cannot help wondering if Luis is seeking to solve the wrong problem.
> (As co-author of an essay on seeking help on technical problems, 'How to
> Ask Questions the Smart Way', I've seen a good bit of that.) If the
> main problem is 'Sometimes
There are a couple of people that, although discussion remained civil, it
seems I cannot afford to engage any longer. Because other people perceive
it as a shouting match.
I do think it is the case that the discussion became repetitious.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 11:47 Richard Fontana
wrote:
> On
Hi Van
Thanks for sharing such an interesting and fresh proposal for our
discussion. I choose this over Finnish Saturday Night Live any time!
*About the main goal of this proposal, User Data:*
It immediately stands out that this license also grants rights to third
parties. This is also novel, i
It's true that drafting by a lawyer is no guarantee of quality, but I agree
with Bruce that writing a legal license *for others to use* is bordering
legal advice. It's therefore a necessary minimum requirement.
I don't see an issue with barrier to entry. The OSI already provides an
ample menu of a
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I do think it is the case that the discussion became repetitious.
As one commenter who has been repetitious for nearly 20 years here, I apologize
for saying things that I still believe but that OSI and you, Bruce, seem often
to ignore. I repeat myself below in random or
Larry,
How did you know you were on the list? :-)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
*As reigning honcho of the Open Source Initiative, I have come to oppress
your license :-)*
*First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public
performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I
read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlight
I noticed that Pipermail rendered my commentary on Van's license horribly.
If anyone has trouble reading it, tell me and I'll attempt to resend in a
different format.
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.op
> *First, would you please discuss whether there is a sufficient public
performance right for software defined in 17 USC 106 (4), (5) and (6)? I
read your discussion of Public Performance and was not enlightened.*
The problem I'm having with this is that you tossed out "software is
defined as a l
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
I should amend this. While I teased Larry here, I appreciate his points
(without agreeing with some) and am really bothered that I can't engage
with him and some other folks without it being seen as some sort of drastic
flaw in the license approval process.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 1:52 PM Bruce Pe
17 matches
Mail list logo
