http://blog.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12181 <pre> Perhaps it would be most productive for license-discuss to proceed under the assumption that OSI would like to fill a more constructive role in the community, and discuss what a license list published by that sort of OSI would look like. In parallel, the board and affiliates can discuss whether a more proactive role is appropriate. If the affiliates and board approve of a more active, forward-looking role for OSI, then OSI can follow through on what license-discuss advises in this thread. If they would prefer to remain in the current, filter-only-for-OSD position, then this will have been an interesting thought experiment for someone else to build on. Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Luis Villa 2012-04-05T18:22:25 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12175 <pre>On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Christopher Allan Webber &lt;cwebber&lt; at &gt;dustycloud.org&gt; wrote: Without getting into other issues, I'd hope we can agree that BSD/MIT do not belong in a first-class list here in 2012. Apache fills the same purpose[1] (permissive license) while being better drafted and properly handling patents. Even if the rest of Karl's proposal does not go through, and nothing else changes with the license list pages, I'd be perfectly happy moving BSD and MIT to the redundant or superseded lists. Luis [1] The very short version of my objection to removal of MPL is that it addresses a clear need (predictable, compatible copyleft) that is not otherwise addressed. Apache, BSD, and MIT address the same need (permissive license). The only possible justification for BSD/MIT is GPL v2 compatibility, but if that's why we're leaving them in the list, then that should be called out as the only justification for using them. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list Licen</pre> Luis Villa 2012-04-05T14:30:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12168 <pre>The CPOL 1.02 license was discussed on this list in 2009. [1, and see attached.) As far as I can tell from reading my old emails and reviewing the OSI license list, it was never approved by OSI. Richard Fontana said this about it on 10/5/2009: This license recently came to our attention at Red Hat. The CPOL fails to meet the Open Source Definition (and Free Software Definition) in numerous ways. I've already been in contact with people at codeproject.com about this. Yet Black Duck reports that this is the 8th most popular open source license. [1] Popularity isn't all that matters! /Larry [1] http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx [2] http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw &amp; Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman</pre> Lawrence Rosen 2012-04-04T23:32:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12150 <pre>(This may be more controversial than my last post -- we'll see.) For many people, the OSI web site is a first source of information about open source licenses. Historically, we haven't tried to steer newcomers toward choosing the most popular / widely-recognized licenses, probably because we thought it more important to remain neutral among all OSI-approved licenses. Times change, though. These days we have a better sense of which licenses are most used and where, and even more experience with the problem of license proliferation. Also, somewhat related to the above, our license pages are a bit hard to navigate. One click from the front page the user is faced with a choice ("alphabetical" vs "by category"), and neither choice quite answers the questions newcomers are most likely to have -- although to be fair the by-category page makes an effort to. I think it's possible to steer newcomers toward a small set of widely-used licenses without denigrating or hiding all the other licenses, and to present a</pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-04T18:40:40 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12144 <pre>(This seems appropriate for both license-discuss&lt; at &gt; and license-review&lt; at &gt;, so I'm posting it in both places.) I've been seeing an increasing number of inquiries about the public domain and open source, and about CC0 and open source. A few of those inquiries have come here, but I'm also getting them elsewhere. So I've tried to formulate good answers: http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero I hope I've reflected the general consensus of the License Review committee accurately, not made any legal mistakes, etc. I'd appreciate feedback on these. The "public domain" entry is complex. It felt wrong to simply say that PD is not open source, when it clearly exhibits most or all of the important properties of Open Source and is at least capable of meeting the OSD; on the other hand, it is not a license and therefore cannot be OSI-approved, and it has some portability problems. So I've tried to express all of that in the answer, and recommend that people use OSI-approved li</pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-04T00:53:45 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12142 <pre>Dear Open Source (License) Community, As recently indicated, Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG) has now published the initial, very early version of an Open Source License Compendium. It is a) licensed under the 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Germany' [http://dtag-dbu.github.com/oslic/en/oslic/license.html], b) published as an eBook (pdf) [http://dtag-dbu.github.com/oslic/en/planning/results.html] c) realized by a LaTeX based 'development environment' hosted as an open and free GitHub project [https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic] We describe our intention in our home page (also hosted on GitHub) [http://dtag-dbu.github.com/oslic/] and specify the cooperation as far as it's possible for the moment [http://dtag-dbu.github.com/oslic/en/collaboration/repository.html]. Additionally, the items of the column 'download' explain how to prepare, how to obtain, how to install, and how to use the development environment. [Anyway, you will directly see, that we find a solution for solving our logo challenge ;-)</pre> Reincke, Karsten 2012-03-21T14:42:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12137 <pre>Hi. I tried maling FSFs licensing department, but the FSFs website says something to the effect that if they have answered the question on their webpage, the mail will be unanswered, and I have not received a reply. So I'm asuming it is answered on their website. However I cannot find the answer to this specific question, and Google is of no help. So I'm trying this list instead. I am packaging an old game I recently discovered, which is still in active development. The game (netrek-client-cow) have MIT or an MIT-like license (at least I think it's MIT), which have a "and without fee" clause. And I am unsure whether that this clause is compatible with Free Software or not. To someone like me, this looks like what we today call a no commercial clause. I have discovered that it most likely is what Fedora call MIT old style. (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style) So my question is, is this a Free Software license? There is two license text files, one is possibly newer that the other. At leas</pre> Johnny Solbu 2012-03-12T14:47:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12013 <pre>Dear OSI Experts, Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG) is writing an Open Source License Compendium, which we intend to be made available to the whole Open Source community. Large (IT) companies are particularily challenged by the quantity of licenses and their various versions. It is becoming quite expensive for each company to allocate and train employees as "Open Source License Experts" in order to ensure that the company acts according to those Open Source licenses touched by their projects. A better solution would be to have something like a "compendium" which lists all relevant usage scenarios, and offers for the major Open Source licenses something like a to-do list that describes what one has to do in order to fulfill the license conditions applicable to these usage scenarios. As far as we know such a reliable compendium doesn't exist at the moment. Following the spirit of Open Source Software, DTAG wants to publish this compendium under the license 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Germany'. Mor</pre> Reincke, Karsten 2012-02-21T15:09:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11991 <pre>Hi, Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ? (i.e. http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html ) Thanks! -mathieu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply messa</pre> Gervais, Mathieu 2012-02-01T20:23:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11976 <pre>Colleagues, I commend for your reading pleasure the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Golan v. Holder, 565 U. S. ____ (2012), which holds broadly that Congress can restore the copyrights of works previously in the public domain in order to conform to the requirements of the Berne Convention. See http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf and 17 U.S.C. 104A &lt;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000104---A000- .html&gt; . This 6-2 decision was written by the court's copyright expert, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It relies heavily on the court's earlier decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which some of you may remember from a few years ago and which affirmed Congressional power to extend copyright terms. Besides being a well-written summary of the purposes of copyright and the balance struck by copyright law, the Golan decision emphasizes again for us that the public domain isn't quite as safe as licenses. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw &amp; Einschlag, a technology l</pre> Lawrence Rosen 2012-01-23T04:35:00 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11967 <pre>Good Morning! Our company is releasing a medical informatics platform, RexDB, under the GPLv3 license later this year (after the code has a developer documentation). We will be using 7b clause of the GPLv3 license for a reasonable author attribution. Even so, parts of our system will be released under a more permissive license, and I'm wondering if there is a simple, MIT-style clause that would be compatible with the GPLv3? Here's my crayon attempt... To the extent that an application using this software displays legal notices, copyrights, or attributions it must acknowledge the Example Project (http://example.org) in a similar manner. Would this sort of clause be compatible with GPLv3 and would it meet the OSI criteria? Would anyone have specific wording suggestions? I'm asking here because I'd rather re-use something similar, if not, then I'd prefer to be adding a clause that has "consensus" here. Thank you kindly. Clark _______________________________________________ License-discuss ma</pre> Clark C. Evans 2012-01-14T13:58:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11950 <pre>Hi, Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command line tool). I interpret that as an aggregate: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Am I right or not? Thanks Mike_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opens</pre> Mike Steglich 2012-01-12T15:59:23 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11945 <pre>Hi! I am a member of the Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware Community. In Tiki, we include quite a few libraries: http://dev.tiki.org/External+Libraries I am also working on "Tiki Suite", a dozen FOSS server and desktop apps to cover what 80% of the people use 80% of the time for a typical small or medium organization. -&gt; http://suite.tiki.org/ So I invest a lot of time evaluating FOSS projects and license compatibility is important. I am also concerned with license proliferation in general, as a barrier for sharing code. I occasionally notice projects which add clauses such as this one http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-November/000025.html Here are three more: a) AskoziaPBX is BSD with an extra clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AskoziaPBX http://www.askozia.com/pbx-license/ b) Roundcube intends to move to GPLv3+ with an exception: http://lists.roundcube.net/mail-archive/announce/2011-12/0000002.html c) sipXecs is AGPL and there are some additional clauses, including "By using </pre> Marc Laporte 2011-12-29T01:51:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11890 <pre> Is there a full/formal list of those abbreviations somewhere? Would be useful to be able to point at. Thanks! Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Luis Villa 2011-12-21T20:56:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11873 <pre>I have a broad question about various interpretations of the GPL with regard to WebAPIs. Let me start with an example scenario. 1. Suppose that Super Visual is a clever GPL licensed data visualization program (released by Vendor A). 2. Now suppose that there is a closed-source, but free to redistribute, data processing library, called Correlate (by Vendor B), which takes a data set and a parameters and does a clever and very proprietary data transformation. 3. Now suppose that I modify Super Visual to incorporate the functionality of Correlate. It works wonderfully and I wish to share my Visual Correlate with my friend. Is this permitted by the GPL? a. Suppose my modifications involve static libraries, the resulting Visual Correlate is a single compiled executable. b. Suppose Super Visual has a plugin mechanism, and I use this internal API to load Correlate as a dynamic link library. Let's assume I also ensure that the program still works but lacks the correlate functionality if</pre> Clark C. Evans 2011-12-20T16:55:30 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11863 <pre>Tentative title: Are 69 Open Source Licenses Enough? My questions: Do we really need that many open source licenses? Is there any way to consolidate some of them, which would make life simpler for a whole lot of people? Or does each one of these licenses serve an essential purpose for someone (or some company)? License-Discuss list traffic has died down a lot over the last two - three year. Why? You can answer me off-list or we can set up a time to talk between Tuesday and Friday. The article will run at: http://olex.openlogic.com/wazi/ Thanks in advance, - - Robin </pre> Robin 'Roblimo' Miller 2011-12-19T15:22:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11849 <pre>I'd love your high-level thoughts on a "Free Island" license or anything that might be similar in nature. ... FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011) This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. So long as this copyright and license are included in all substantial copies of this work you may: 1. Publicly copy and use verbatim copies of this work including public distribution and performance. 2. Privately deal with this work in any way you wish, including internal usage, copying, and modification of this work. You may also make publicly available via distribution or public performance any Derived Work only if the following conditions are met: 1. the preferred source code for the Derived Work must be made freely available under this license; 2. the Derived Work must pass the Free Island test. By "Derived Work" we mean a modified copy or adaptation of this work or a sep</pre> Clark C. Evans 2011-12-12T18:45:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/11848 <pre>Now that I've sent out the MPL, I'll raise again the question of four MPL-derived licenses that appear to belong in the "licenses that have been voluntarily retired" list. [Originally raised in Jan. 2010 and again in Mar. 2011.] * CUA Office license: as of Jan. 2010, their website[1] said that the project was dissolved and they had requested that the license be 'withdrawn from the OSI list'. Since Jan. 2010 their website has apparently been whittled down as part of the recent SF reorg, and this text can no longer be found. * Sun Public License v 1.0: Simon says this is officially retired; in Jan. 2010 he cited this blog post in support of that claim, but it only references SISSL: http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/addressing_proliferation_deeds_not_just * CA TOSL: can no longer find essentially any references to this on the CA website[2]; appears to have been written to cover the official source release of Ingres in 2004[3], but Ingres has since moved to GPL[4]. Not sure this counts as voluntarily retired</pre> Luis Villa 2011-12-09T15:08:19 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general