Scheme registry license
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 10:00 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme registry license
hga@xxxxxx
(07 Aug 2020 10:59 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme registry license
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 11:13 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme registry license
hga@xxxxxx
(07 Aug 2020 14:56 UTC)
|
Scheme.org file server?
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 11:36 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org file server?
John Cowan
(07 Aug 2020 13:59 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org file server?
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 14:11 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org file server?
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 14:13 UTC)
|
Brief notes on licensing
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 11:46 UTC)
|
Re: Brief notes on licensing hga@xxxxxx (07 Aug 2020 15:08 UTC)
|
Scope of the registry, and impact of scope on licensing
Lassi Kortela
(07 Aug 2020 15:32 UTC)
|
Re: Scope of the registry, and impact of scope on licensing
hga@xxxxxx
(07 Aug 2020 16:45 UTC)
|
All your points are well taken. My point which I didn't make clear was what licenses are we going to reject out of hand for Schemeregistry, particularly for lists of useful things with pointers to their home pages, repos, and/or tarballs (and ideally our backups of those). I suggest we accept anything that's accepted by Open Source Initiative, it's criteria are here: https://opensource.org/osd This covers every licence I've seen as of late that claims to be "open" with the exception of some new ones that fail criteria 5 and/or 6, "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor." The latter an old issue, e.g. what does it mean that your work can "only be used for good" purposes? Note the above criteria limitations have the RMS seal of approval. - Harold ----- Original message ----- From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> Date: Friday, August 07, 2020 6:46 AM > Acceptable software licenses for those should be defined, either > anything https://opensource.org/licenses approved, or we could take > a stand against all or almost all viral licenses. I certainly do, > the moment I see GPL/LGPL or worse I move it into "perhaps examine > for ideas category. We are not a popular and big enough community > to allow members of it to try to force copyleft on everyone else. > > An exception is the Eclipse license; while the boundary isn't > precisely defined, it's clear enough for me, if you modify the stuff > released under it, it's copyleft, you have an entirely reasonable > reciprocal duty to the community that provided it to you. But > anything that for example links or uses it remains your own IP. E.g. > patch the core if Clojure and you have a duty to make this available, > but your independent code written in Clojure is yours. General notes on licensing: - There is no such thing as a clear license. The war stories are many. Fans of particular licenses like to advertise how clear it is. None of those people are lawyers nor ran a big software project for years. - The rational choices are: 1. If you want copyleft, pick the most popular copyleft one. 2. Pick the most popular license in the community you work in. 3. Since all licenses are unclear anyway, might as well pick the shortest widely used license, which is probably ISC. - We'll never reach consensus on copyleft vs non-copyleft, it ties very deeply into personality, political outlook and past experiences. A practical choice is to use a short permissive license for things that need to be shared between copyleft and non-copyleft camps. - In many parts of the world an author can't deliberately place works into the public domain, so some kind of license is needed.