http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12219 <pre> Attention! Your PayPal account will close soon! Dear Member, We have faced some problems with your account Please update the account .If you do not update will be Closed. To Update your account, just confirm your informations.(It only takes a minute.) It's easy: Click the link below to open a secure browser window. Confirm that you're the owner of the account, and then follow the instructions. Relog in your account now Please do not reply to this email. We are unable to respond to inquiries sent to this address. For immediate answers to your questions, visit our Help Center by clicking "Help" at the top of any PayPal page. Copyright © 2012 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. PayPal is located at 2211 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95131. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> service< at >paypal.com 2012-05-11T21:37:23 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12218 <pre> Agreed! Thanks, Jilayne. -K _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-05-01T23:48:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12217 <pre> Usually :) It gets complicated for lawyers to contact non-lawyers about legal issues - generally unadvisable. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Luis Villa 2012-05-01T19:30:43 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12216 <pre> A very useful suggestion -- thanks, Michael (and hi!). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-05-01T01:03:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12215 <pre> On a related note, I recently came across Warrick, a tool for reconstructing past versions of a website, that might come in handy to the folks on this list for various purposes: http://code.google.com/p/warrick/wiki/About_Warrick For example, I am currently using Warrick to reconstruct a past copy of a large site that recently decided to stop distributing its content under a CC license. </pre> Michael Bernstein 2012-04-30T23:20:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12214 <pre> Heh, good to have that confirmation. Yes. We have a general "express deprecation better" issue to deal with, and part of the solution is that every page we have about a deprecated license should recommend using the newest version instead. I think those old versions *are* effectively deprecated, it's just that we don't express that clearly anywhere. -K _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T22:41:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12213 <pre>John, wow. Thank you so much for that incredibly helpful mail. I'm not going to have time to incorporate all this information into our site between now and the next OSI board meeting (this Wednesday), but knowing this is in the archives makes some upcoming tasks much less daunting! -K John Cowan &lt;cowan&lt; at &gt;mercury.ccil.org&gt; writes: _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T22:38:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12212 <pre> http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. Indeed, my internal wayback machine can assure you that all were approved by the OSI board. This was a license I re-wrote through several versions as the OSI board kept asking for different forms of patent defense, only to see industry representatives groan and complain. These patent-defense experiments - drafted with full cooperation at the time of the OSI board and with their comprehensive input -- were finally concluded with the publication of Academic Free License (AFL) 3.0 along with OSL 3.0 (and soon thereafter, at the request of IETF, the Non-Profit OSL 3.0). I previously requested that the earlier versions of those licenses be deprecated. There is probably still software in the wild under those early license versions</pre> Lawrence Rosen 2012-04-30T20:19:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12211 <pre>Kevin, You may not have the ability to litigate but your college does to some degree. Earlham likely also has some IP rules that you probably want to be aware of. Probably a good place to start is with your ITPC committee who formulated your copyright policies a while back. You also want to be aware of any requirements of the grants funding the research. Of course, don't do this without speaking to your advisor first. :) In any case, if there is an existing community then following existing community conventions is often the most neighborly thing to do...some researchers are "protective" and don't respond well to "encouragement". My recommendation is to pick an OSI license...either GPL or ECL v2.0 and call it a day. Of the two ECL is more geared toward the needs of a research university with a set of accompanying contributor license agreements. Release your data and papers under one of the OpenData or CC licenses...either permissive or share-alike. Folks amenable to sharing back will...but I've alw</pre> Tzeng, Nigel H. 2012-04-30T19:59:58 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12210 <pre>Kevin Hunter scripsit: It depends on the license. For the GPL and LGPL, changes are explicitly forbidden. Some licenses have a provision (typically at the end) letting you clone the license with modifications provided you change the name and remove all references to the original license. Others, like MIT or BSD, are effectively short and un-creative enough to be treated as public domain or at least fair use (and everyone does). But it makes no difference, because you can always say "licensed under the XYZ license with the following additional restrictions/permissions". The GPL and LGPL have language allowing the recipient to ignore additional restrictions if they aren't of specified types, but that only works when the original code was issued under the straight GPL/LGPL. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T19:46:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12209 <pre>Kevin, If you want to make everything fit in the framework of Free Software, you can get a lawyer for free through the Software Freedom Conservancy, and there is a well-established history of them going to court for their clients. But you have to fit in their parameters of Free Software. It's worth discussing with Brad Kuhn. Maybe he'll see a way. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T19:29:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12208 <pre> Embarrassingly, I had not run across those. I'll get back once I've had a chance to digest them. Thank you for the pointer and those links. The problem is that at this point, we're not building a community, but rather adding to an already existing community. In the same breath, I'm painfully aware that as an academic (more specifically a graduate student), I have roughly $0 to litigate or otherwise enforce any license issue that may arise. And this is the rub for more than just my research group. We basically already "live with the fact that not everyone will follow it" (Bruce, in a sister sub-thread). In plainer language, the bottom line is that a law is only as good as the combination of "enforceability" and willingness of a people to follow it. However, we believe there is more than one reason why folks in our sub-sub domain don't freely share their (academically oriented) code and data, including such "simple" problems as - Don't know how - Don't have a venue to do so - Don't </pre> Kevin Hunter 2012-04-30T19:22:15 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12207 <pre>Karl Fogel scripsit: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. The same search shows that 1.1 was approved, but again no evidence for 1.0. The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia claims that APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this statement. That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable fuss at the time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first of the new licenses with that property). When the Artistic 1.0 was written, the distinction was not well understood. I don't think that's a problem. No evidence that it ever was, nor do I have any recollection of it. No evidence for it. That agrees with my recollections. I agree. The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU Library vs. Lesser P</pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T19:19:14 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12206 <pre>:-) Well, this is more than a bit of a stretch, but I can argue it this way if you like. The difference is in how they are enforced. To enforce a license to enter land, the plaintiff can ask for criminal action on basis of tresspass, tresspass being a greater offense than breach of contract. The defendant claims there was a license and the plaintiff shows why one did not exist in those particular circumstances. Similarly, the plaintiff sues for copyright infringement rather than breach of contract, and doesn't set out to prove consent and otherwise build a contract case. The only value in licenses is that they can be enforced. If you don't care about enforcement, publish what you want as a guideline, and live with the fact that not everyone will follow it. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T18:42:34 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12205 <pre>Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: In general I agree, but having a mandatory-sharing license can actually work to the advantage of investigators. They can say to their bosses, "Look, I can modify this code at a cost of $X, and we have to make the modified version available. Or I can develop my own code at a cost of $Y &gt;&gt; $X. You pick." Yes, it would violate the OSD's anti-discrimination rules. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T18:23:50 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12204 <pre>You probably have already done this but I suggest seeing if the ScienceCommons and NeuroCommons projects offers something to your liking. http://neurocommons.org/page/Main_Page http://creativecommons.org/science It would be highly useful to have a single set of licenses to cover data, software and publications along with the usual set of CC like options (BY, BY-SA, BY-SA-NC, etc). The most likely place to find where we're at with that is within the ScienceCommons community. Working with that community might be fruitful for you. IMHO you are better served to release under a permissive license and build a community that encourages sharing than attempt to force sharing. The neurocommons project is an excellent exemplar in my opinion. I believe most of their code is BSD or something similar. I like it far more than the EPPA model...but perhaps EPPA driven to be that way since they use the GAMS commercial product. Regarding your desire for an OSI approved license that meets your criteria...I pretty sure</pre> Tzeng, Nigel H. 2012-04-30T18:14:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12203 <pre> Jilayne, I'm about two months behind on taking care of this. Thanks for putting together such an easy-to-use spreadsheet, and my apologies for the delay. I'll respond inline here, so it's easy for others to see and chime in: First, you asked this about Academic Free License versions AFL-1.1, AFL-1.2, AFL-2.0, and AFL-2.1: &gt; My understanding is that all the Academic Free Licenses were OSI &gt; approved, but I can't find a good url to the actual license text of &gt; the older versions (just this mirror). question for OSI: &gt; &gt; 1) Was this specific license/version OSI approved? &gt; 2) if yes, is there a better link to the license text? I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to 3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to "/licenses/afl-3.0.php", and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0. This highlights the need for a clearer license obsolescense process at OSI and the need to have findable records of approved-but-now-obsolete licenses. http://pro</pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T17:25:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12202 <pre>Bruce Perens scripsit: Do you have case law for this claim? Conditional copyright licenses are most closely analogous to conditional licenses to enter land, where in general the condition can be anything, provided it's not against public policy or otherwise problematic in itself. Of course, in civil law land, licenses are contracts, period. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T17:13:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12201 <pre>Hi Kevin, People who understand what they're doing won't generally write a license that can't be enforced because it makes them look stupid. What you need is a contract, not a license. In general the Open Source licenses only deal with copyright, and you can't compel some action unrelated to copyright, like publication of research results, with a simple license. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T16:34:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12200 <pre>Hullo List, For a scientific computing project, I'd like to encourage redistribution of software upon publication of research results (e.g. academic journals) by third parties using our code. I'm not currently aware of any license geared toward this scenario. (There are lots of examples of academic journals requiring this, but I'm having a difficult time tracking down a license for /code/ that is generally used to inform an academic publication. More specifically, the sub-sub discipline for which the code I have written will potentially be used currently does not run rich with a FOSS ethos.) As an example, if we license our code under the GPL, then folks who publish papers with results from use of our software are never redistributing any /software/, only publishing a paper, and are thus not required to share code. However, we feel from a scientific standpoint that it's crucial that the code (*and* data) used for publication results be shared. The closest I've been able to find is the EPP</pre> Kevin Hunter 2012-04-30T15:36:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12199 <pre> On Apr 5, 2012, at 11:35 AM, John Cowan wrote: -0... but just because something had been around for a long time (BSD/MIT) is no reason to maintain it as a 1st class citizen... The idea of a 1st class list is to "prioritize" the better licenses for a class of licenses, and the ALv2 is "better" than BSD/MIT. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Jim Jagielski 2012-04-15T14:37:44 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general