coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Adam Baxter <voltagex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Nasser,
Are we done here? I'd like to get back to some code now.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Nasser Dassi <nasserd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just to bring everyone's attention back to topic, here are the licenses in
> question:
>
> Alphabetical listing of OSI Licenses --
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
>
> *"New" BSD* License -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> *Apache *License 2.0 -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
> Apache License 2.0 -- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
> *CodePlex *Foundation Contribution Agreement --
> http://codeplex.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1TNVRjyVZJQ%3d&tabid=93
>
> If we are talking about CoApp-created software, then Apache License 2.0
> provides more explicit protections of liability/damage/etc.
>
> If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt the
> most transparent license.  Why?  Because we are not usurping licensing of
> the source code; we are simply re-packaging the source code... so, broadly
> speaking, we should protect all other licensing choices by stating that
> COAPP-COMPILED SOFTWARE HONORS THE LICENSING SCHEME AS CHOSEN BY THE
> ORIGINAL AUTHORS.
>
> *for example..*. If the source is BSD, then our compilation is BSD.  If
> the source is GPL, then our compilation is GPL.  If we are combining
> multiple packages together, then we should establish a matrix that is
> inclusive of participatory licensing.
>
> *also...* Since the license scheme for source code is known and stored as
> METADATA, then we can do real-time calculations based on pre-defined
> compatible combinations.
>
> (Yeah... i studied some law... but i'm not a lawyer...)
>
> - nasser
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Fenn <andrewfenn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you
>> actually
>> > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this
>> topic,
>>
>> I meant within our community not in open source in general. It seems
>> some want BSD others want APL. I personally don't care which however I
>> figured I should mention such an idea as an alternative so that
>> everyone is happy.
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmrowe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > On 5/18/2010 9:54 PM, Andrew Fenn wrote:
>> >> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
>> >> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause to
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > Hmmm?
>> >
>> > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict?  Can you
>> actually
>> > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this
>> topic,
>> > other than Theo?  I'm asking both because I'm not fond of technical nor
>> legal
>> > FUD, and because if there is a problem with the AL I'd like to point it
>> out
>> > to the relevant lawyers for when its revisited again.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
>> > Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
>> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
>> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>