Hello,
due to me being unable to find a reciprocal software license I'm truly happy
with I've been working on developing my own:
https://github.com/MoritzMaxeiner/contribution-public-license/blob/master/
LICENSE.org
I would - eventually - like to submit the license for OSI approval, but
though
t; license to changes; the license itself applies to everyone and cannot
> be restricted to a subset without changing the license text, which is
> not allowed by the license. The additional words will only serve to
> cause confusion and uncertainty to readers of the license.
>
> On Sun
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
igations
- at least one publication must be available for at least 30 days
- patent grants
- explicit irrevocability except in case of obligation violations
Any additional feedback would be welcome.
Thank you for your time.
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 23:48:38 CEST Moritz Maxeiner w
.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-August/thread.html
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pam...@chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On 8/4/2019 10:39 PM, Moritz Maxeiner
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
can think of a new name).
Any additional feedback would be welcome.
Thank you for your time.
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 23:48:38 CEST Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [...]
The Contribution Public License 1.0 (Draft)
═══
*Contributor Notice:* `Licen
Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from
Contribution Public License (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL).
I've also slightly reordered the license text for (what I think makes for)
easier reading.
Attached in plaintext is the new draft.
Thanks for your time,
Moritz
On Saturday, 3 August 20
#x27;t submit the license to the OSI for approval without it going
through a lawyer beforehand I was under the impression (from the archives of
the mailing list) that this kind of discussion is what it's for.
If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize.
>
> -Origina
uss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz
> >>Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source
> >>License
> >>
> >&g
ou're serious
> > about it; there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language
> > inconsistencies in all the drafts you have presented so far on this
> > mailing list. People of course are welcome to comment if they so choose
> > but I'm not sure I see a rea
la Chestek wrote:
> On 8/8/2019 3:57 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: License-discuss
> >>> [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> >>> Moritz Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8,
ch attempts to circumvent limits and exceptions to
> copyright violate the intent of FLOSS even when not clearly understood to
> violate the language of the OSD.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 13:48 Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> > Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from
> &g
On Friday, 9 August 2019 02:19:30 CEST Brendan Hickey wrote:
> Branching off from the Libre Source discussion. Not necessarily in reply to
> Russell, but this seems like a good jumping off point.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:09 PM Russell McOrmond
>
> wrote:
> > I will register my standard objec
On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:02:27 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:50 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it can be considered a good policy argument, but my point
> > of
> > view is that it's - at the very least - ethically
On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:44 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> > In my opinion the spirit (if not the wording) of the "libre" in FLOSS is
> > primarily (and if not should be) about minimizing the restrictions p
On Friday, 9 August 2019 15:42:16 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone can help explain to me what they see as the
> difference between the forced public disclosure of private modifications of
> software, and registration of mere usage, private modification, or public
> discloseof
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 04:33:25 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> > On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> > > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not
> >
On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 22:07:28 CEST Michael Downey wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, at 12:22, Howard Chu wrote:
> > Article 27:
> > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life
> > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
> > advancem
On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 19:59:03 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available
> > to
> > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) b
On Friday, 30 August 2019 16:29:05 CEST Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
> On Friday 30 August 2019 16:13, Patrick Masson wrote:
> >I'm an amateur software developer specializing in Python game
> >development. My goal ultimately is to develop a cross-platform RPG.
> >My principal concern, then, i
21 matches
Mail list logo
