A few points that could do with some thought and possibly clarification:
It doesn't seem like this license requires distribution of source code. It
seems like the original author could distribute an application only as a
precompiled binary, in which case subsequent recipients/modifiers would al
urce.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Contribution
> Public License
>
> On Monday, 5 August 2019 19:34:39 CEST Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
> wrote:
> > A few points that could do with some thought and possibly clarification:
> >
> > I
If OSI pursues this approach, what do you call these licenses that are just
starting to be used in the real world but have not yet been reviewed and
approved by OSI? Can they be called Open Source? If not, it seems like a
significant obstacle to getting these licenses into practical use. How
For completeness, there is also a slight variation of MS-PL that I have seen
called MS-LPL, the Microsoft Limited Public License. It adds a platform
limitation (e.g., "This software may only be used to develop an application
intended to be run on the Microsoft Windows Operating System"). The w
I’m reading Eric’s proposal and John’s response as addressing slightly
different things.
OSI publishes the Open Source Definition, and maintains a list of OSI-Approved
Licenses.
I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it wants
to add licenses to the list of OSI-Ap
** Although I am a practicing attorney, this should not be viewed as legal
advice. I am only providing my own thoughts on the subject for the purpose of
participating in discussion of a topic that I find interesting. Also, note that
the law is much deeper than the points I'm touching upon here.
As an analogy, think about an artist during the Renaissance.
Let's say he paints a work of art simply because he was inspired. Nobody tells
him what to paint. He owns the painting, and he can do whatever he wants with
it. He has freedom and control over the work. But he also takes the risk.
Hello, I wanted to get clarification on section 3.1(b) of the Cryptographic
Autonomy License.
The relevant text from the license, as approved:
3.1. Permissions Granted
Conditioned on compliance with section 4, and subject to the limitations of
section 3.2, Licensor grants You the world-wide, r
Without commenting on WHETHER any licenses should be
deprecated/disapproved/legacy, nor on WHICH licenses are appropriate
candidates, I would like to suggest a consideration related to HOW to do so.
One of the parts of my job is reviewing commercial contracts. Some of those
contracts include r
Here's how I think about it.
Let's say a patent claim has 5 elements. That means you need all 5 things to
"infringe" the patent.
Situation A: The project already has all 5 elements of the claim. I make a
contribution to a different area of the project, unrelated to the functionality
of those
That's a really interesting way of looking at it:
In order to be within the OSD, the license needs to be actually capable of
granting the necessary rights/licenses.
That's certainly true in other contexts. If the license only grants the right
to COPY but not MODIFY or DISTRIBUTE, it doesn't gr
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Instead, as long as the five basic freedoms on the cover of my book are
protected, software will be open source enough for me. That is why I have
proposed this common definition:
“Open source software” means software actually distributed to the public under
software
Hi Bruce,
I’m sorry, I think there’s a disconnect.
I read Larry’s statement to be about the definition of Open Source Software,
but you’re referring to standards and patents in standards. I didn’t intend to
get into a discussion of standards.
I don’t have a problem with Open Source Licenses t
More when I get a chance, but briefly on this:
“…and let OSI define Open Source Copyrights with the OSD.”
We are of one mind!
-Nick
From: Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 11:19 AM
To: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock ;
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
I agree.
On the flip side, I would also say that there are be some licenses widely
understood to be "Open Source" that would seem to fail a highly literalist
reading of the OSD.
The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" that the
community does not view as providi
This crossed in the ether with my response to Richard.
To your question below, I can cite two examples of Richard's concern:
* Ms-LPL is generally viewed as not "Open Source" because it has a platform
limitation. It's not listed in SPDX or on OSI. It would satisfy this
definition.
* Code Pro
to make money off that condition; copyleft
licenses are granted for the purpose of creating "open source software," which
is its own reward. Academic licenses, on the other hand, treat the "condition"
of attribution as its own reward, even though there is no way to c
You’re only talking about Copyright law. The equivalent in Patent law is only
for the named inventors. So if a FOSS project wants to change license they
would need to be certain that the scope of the patent grant is unchanged, or
get approval from every contributor that is actually granting a
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,
source (SSPL and AGPL)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
mailto:nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com>> wrote:
On Sunday the 13th, Lukas discussed the idea that “intimate” communication is
in regards to distributing Corresponding Source, so the license must mea
Matthew Neft Weinstock
mailto: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 license allow Corresponding Source
Hi Van, in pondering your claim that only portions of Debian can be called
"Open Source" based on whether they are under an OSI Approved License. I think
the logic is backward. I agree that everything in the list of OSI Approved
Licenses is Open Source, but I don't think that means that a lice
Thanks for the explanation. I would like to follow up on your first point with
a comparison to UL.
UL acts in a completely neutral manner when determining whether to certify an
electronic device. Does it meet the code requirements, yes or no? If all code
requirements are met, it is certified
: [EXT] Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-
> approved list
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > OSI does not do so with regards to prospective licenses. It considers other
> factors besides
Agreed. I've been saying for a while (since I started participating on this
board) that there needs to be clear recognition of the difference between the
LICENSE and the PROGRAM, and make sure we're talking about the right thing.
Copyright ownership is more straightforward: Only one person is t
Can you provide a link to SADL v 1.0 or 2.0 for reference?
-Nick
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Alec Bloss
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 11:47 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Request for Comment: Software and Development
License, version 3.0
WARNIN
26 matches
Mail list logo
