|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 16:05 (EDT) on Wednesday:
Do you expect the SPDX License List to cover every license you find?I'm not clear on what the value of SPDX's license list unless it's comprehensive. Can you explain how SPDX is still useful if the licenses for widely distributed and used central-infrastructure programs can't be listed with SPDX? Does any list?Other license lists aren't designed to allow for cataloging the details of a Free Software release, nor are they meant to be grokked by programs, so they don't need to be perfectly comprehensive. If a license is missing from SPDX's list, I can't write an accurate SPDX file for that package, right? Seems like a really big bug in SPDX to me. This is why I keep renewing my encouragement for the SPDX group to actually *write* some SPDX files and carry them upstream. Your problems with SPDX will start to shake out a lot faster if you do that. Indeed, my offer that I've been making for a year remains open: when I see that SPDX patch come across the BusyBox mailing list, I'll endorse it and encourage Denys to put it upstream.... but I still haven't seen the patch arrive, and when I suggest this to SPDX folks, they tell me "upstream should be responsible for doing this work". I get worried any time a bunch of proprietary software companies get together and start suggesting unfunded mandates for upstream Free Software projects. -- -- bkuhn
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 16:02 (EDT) on Wednesday:
So, if you have an idea as to how to implement this idea, whileIMO, "implementing" is trivial. The tough part is careful cataloging to know *what* to add to the list. For example, obviously, no one did the work of cataloging the exceptions in GCC, which is why the license of GCC can't be represented by SPDX for any version of GCC (See my other post about that: http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/2012-June/000704.html ) If someone wants to do the work of cataloging the exceptions in GCC, I'd be happy to advise, since I was involved with Brett Smith when he did the work during the 3.1 RTL exception drafting process. Cc me on any email threads that are working on this and I'll try to allocate time to help. But, note that exceptions are all over the place, in things like Classpath, autoconf, and plenty of other places. I wonder: has anyone taken a Fossology (the best scanning tool available as Free Software) run of Debian distribution and just made sure every license it finds has a moniker in SPDX? If not, why not? Seems like a necessary first step for SPDX to have any chance of being complete. -- -- bkuhn
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Ciaran Farrell
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 20:05 +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
No, of course not. There are simply too many licenses which almostDo you expect the SPDX License List to cover every license you find? DoesTo chime in on this, at openSUSE we have exactly the problem described exactly correspond to existing, known licenses. It is the 'almost exactly' that raises the issue. If all of these were to be included in a list, the list would be very long indeed. It would be great to align your list with the SPDX List (and make sure thehttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc The left column is the SPDX shortname (with a proprietary SUSE- before it if the license is not on the SPDX list). If we are referring only to the shortnames (typically, this - or aJust posted a response to the original response on this. combination of these - would be what would be included in the spec file) then we would not get far if we limited ourselves only to packages with licenses on the spdx list. Our current workaround, as stated above, is to use a proprietary SUSE- prefix and to come up with a SPDX-like shortname. Ciaran
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
Do you expect the SPDX License List to cover every license you find? DoesTo chime in on this, at openSUSE we have exactly the problem described any list? It would be great to align your list with the SPDX List (and make sure the short identifiers are consistent, as the intent it to not changes those, once they are published on the list) - please see the link above as to how to add a license or join a legal call so we can figure out how best to proceed. Just posted a response to the original response on this. What makes it "unusable" - I'm not sure I completely understand. - Jilayne
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
(I have included the legal list on this response)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
This has been discussed a couple times and part of this issue is listed as a "to-do" on the legal page (http://spdx.org/wiki/legal-team-current-issues-last-updated-june-27), namely making sure the license list has capture all the common exceptions to begin with. The concept of having a base license with additive options was discussed (I can't seem to find it in the meeting minutes, but I only looked briefly at this year and it may even have been before that or touched upon tangentially) If memory serves, it wasn't a matter of consensus that this was a bad idea, but there has yet to be a fully thought-out proposal submitted for thorough consideration. So, if you have an idea as to how to implement this idea, while keeping in mind the overall goal of the LIcense List, etc. - that would be great!! Maybe someone else from the legal team can also weigh in here regarding the previous discussions on this topic. - Jilayne
On 6/22/12 12:10 PM, "Peter Bigot" <bigotp@...> wrote:
With respect to the license list, an issue I happened to notice this
|
|
|
|
Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder
Philip Odence
A few upfront items:
Meeting Time: June 28, 8am
PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html
Conf call dial-in: Conference code: 7812589502 Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230 International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732 For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF Administrative
Agenda
Attendance
Approve minutes: not yet posted.
Technical Team Report - Kate
Legal Team Report - Jilayne
Business Team Report – Jack/Scott
Cross Functional Issues
Website Update – Steve Cropper
FOSS Barcode Tracker Presentation- Ibrahim Haddad
|
|
|
|
FOSS term for contracts
RUFFIN MICHEL
"Possibly" is not a term you want to use in a contract because it means something and its contrary. For instance we had problems of defining the i) definition of FOSS-for-contracts (I put the definition at the end of the mail for convenience) on the term "but not limited to" because we wanted to included in i) some non OSI compliant open-source-like license: some SW coming in open source form but with specific constraints for instance beerware (you have to offer a beer to the copyright owner if you meet him/her). Note that beerware license might be OSI compliant it is just that nobody has made the request to OSI 8-). And we want that to be acceptable to companies in a legal framework. We cannot limit us on this i) to the 60 or 70 OSI compliant licenses.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
We thought to a lot of things: - "Downloadable software": does not work we have contract for proprietary software for which we pay and the software is downloadable however it is not entering in the FOSS-contract definition. - "unpaid third party software": does not work. We have software part of the FOSS-contract definition which come with a paying license and OSI compliant licenses (for instance linux distribution form Linux distributors). - "Software not coming through procurement". Same as above - "Software without an explicit signature of a contract or license". Same as above - "software for which we cannot negotiate conditions". That does not work with proprietary software coming for free (ii) we have sometimes negotiated special conditions. - ... Perhaps we should say "Free of cost Software and/or Open source-like software" and noted it F&|OSS (& is the logical "and" and "|" is the logical "or" symbols used in some programming languages and mathematic). Note that I am rather in favor of keeping the world "open source" in this name because it is the major aim for this definition even if it is broader. Note I am happy in this discussion that we do not focus on the definition by itself. It seems that the definition is clear enough to everybody and the scope is clear. Finally, I think that this current thread shows the need for standardizing this wording. Since 2007 that we put that clauses in our contracts, we discussed any world of these clauses with hundreds of companies each time implying lawyers, procurement, technical people in both companies, that's a huge effort but so far nobody challenged us really on the term "FOSS" 8-). Michel "Free and/or Open Source Software" or "FOSS" means (i) software provided to Licensor royalty-free in source code form, under a license including, but not limited to, one approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI http://www.opensource.org/) or (ii) proprietary software provided to Licensor royalty-free in binary code form, under an end user license agreement that is accepted without a signature, or (iii) shareware provided to Licensor free of initial charge, such as on a trial basis, but where a fee may become due once the user decides to use the software beyond the trial period, or (iv) public domain software Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France
-----Message d'origine-----
De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Philip Odence Envoyé : lundi 25 juin 2012 13:19 À : koohgoli@...; spdx@... Objet : Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Good one! On 6/22/12 4:57 PM, "Mahshad Koohgoli" <koohgoli@...> wrote: How about_______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
|
|
|
Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
Philip Odence
Good one!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 6/22/12 4:57 PM, "Mahshad Koohgoli" <koohgoli@...> wrote:
How about
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>
Ciaran Farrell wrote at 15:45 (EDT) on Saturday:
at openSUSE .... we'd like to adopt SPDX, but the license list doesThis is interesting; I'd suspect this might be the case for other distributions, too. Debian, for example, basically has always kept a full text file (.../doc/copyright) to describe the exact licensing situation of its packages. Peter Bigot wrote on Friday: Indeed. I don't even *know* of any package in the world that's licensedWith respect to the license list, an issue I happened to notice this under "GPLv2-only along with any given 'GCC exception'". There is actually *no such thing* as a single "GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception". The GPLv2'd versions of GCC actually have a patchwork of *different* exceptions that are all worded slightly differently and appear throughout various directories in the sources. When I helped lead the process of drafting the GPLv3 RTL exception, one of our primary goals was to encompass and rectify the differences in the various GPLv2 exceptions for GCC. Meanwhile, one of my proposals during the GPLv3 RTL exception drafting process -- which FSF now does -- is that all exceptions should be versioned. SPDX's license list doesn't account for this at all. SPDX will have to completely rework its monikers and details when new versions of exceptions are released [0]. Meanwhile, I note the obvious additional issue that Peter hinted at but didn't raise explicitly: I'm not aware of any program in the world that's GPLv3-only plus the GCC RTL exception 3.1. GCC itself is currently under "GPLv3-or-later with the GCC Runtime Library Exception 3.1". But even *that* isn't fully accurate as a generalization, because *parts* of GCC are under that license I just stated, but the majority of the code is straight GPLv3-or-later. Having not looked closely at the SPDX license list before, a first analysis shows that it's completely inadequate for representing even the most common licensing situations on some of the most widely used of programs. Indeed, it seems as SPDX's license list stands now, I basically couldn't represent the license of *any* version of GCC except versions from the very early 1990s, and even for those, I'd need to add a license exception or two. (Note, BTW -- and I bet this issue will be of particular interest to the Free Software licensing historians among us -- that the proto-GPL license such as the Emacs Public License, the GCC Public License, and the Nethack Public License aren't on SPDX's license list at all. To the extent that anyone wants to use SPDX's license list as a tool to represent historical versions of software, that's completely impossible, too. Notwithstanding that the Nethack Public License is actually still in active use AFAIK.) [0] Also, note there is, in fact, an RTL exception v3.0, although, I suspect it's not used by any package. It was only the default version "in the wild" for about 6 weeks, which is of course longer than GFDL 1.0's 4 day lifespan as the current version. (Those of you who, like me, were doing Free Software licensing work back in 2000 will remember that widespread confusion in early March 2000; I'm still apologizing for my role in that and various confusions about the GFDL. :) -- -- bkuhn
|
|
|
|
Re: FOSS clauses for contracts & fora for discussing it (was Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network")
Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
Hi Everyone,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I just got back from europe. Please give me a couple days to catch up on my email and I will reply early next week. Ibrahim
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Philip Odence <podence@...> wrote: Michel, Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D. The Linux Foundation
Cell: +1 (408) 893-1122
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Ciaran Farrell
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 00:23 +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
In so far as Phil and Michael's previous comment regarding the SPDXTo chime in on this, at openSUSE we have exactly the problem described above - we'd like to adopt SPDX, but the license list does not provide anywhere need the coverage that we need. What we've done in the interim is create a spreadsheet on Google Docs where we add those licenses we need to track with a SUSE- prefix. We'd hope to push these (or substitutes for those) upstream to the SPDX license list. In response to another idea on this list, I also think it makes sense to use operators like + and - instead of basic strings for license shortnames. It is certainly not consistent that the list contains e.g. GPL-2.0-with-openssl-exception but not GPL-2.0+-with-openssl-exception. Rather than coming up with n- strings for all those licenses out there, surely using an operator would make more sense. In summary, the SPDX format (well, for us as a linux distribution, the SPDX shortnames) looks like it could help provide considerable consistency, but (and this is a huge but) it is currently unusable for linux distributions. Ciaran
|
|
|
|
Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network"
Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 20:01 (EDT) on Thursday:
Would agree to the extent that, considering that what Michel isI agree that trying everywhere makes sense for what Michel is trying to do, since, as others have pointed out, there's no clear venue for the discussion at the moment. On 6/14/12 8:39 AM, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@...> wrote:ftf-legal is an invite-only mailing list, and thus it's probably not a I feel like I need to at least suggest an alternative view forI think you're responding to a point I didn't raise. I didn't claim ftf-legal isn't useful -- indeed, I've applied and been denied membership in ftf-legal many times myself. I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think there were likely useful discussions going on there. due to the Chatham House Rule,I don't object to ftf-legal's use of CHR per se, but I'm still confused about how the CHR applies to a meeting that never ends, since CHR is designed for timeboxed meetings. Does ftf-legal has some tutorial on their odd application of CHR? Anyway, the issue I was raising was not about the traffic on ftf-legal itself, but the meta-issue of how the list membership is constructed. It is a self-selected group that arbitrarily refuses applicants based on secret criteria. Your response didn't seem to address that problem. The network is made up of mostly lawyersI have confirmation there are many, many non-lawyers on the list. I don't know the percentage numbers, obviously, since the data I have is from self-disclosure. (a) SPDX currently has no plans nor mechanism to address the key and I'm not sure it's the role of SPDX to address this problemIndeed, I'm sure you're right on that point. However, that also means that SPDX is focused on addressing minor problems and ignoring the largest and most common FLOSS license compliance problem in the world in favor of minor ones. That's the center of my criticism (a) above. (b) I strongly object to the fact that most of the software being But all the tools coming out of the SPDX working groups are openThese don't appear to me, based on the URL given above, to be flourishing Free Software projects. The git log seems a bit sparse, and there's not a lot of "there there". It seems three contributors are occasionally committing stuff. I'm glad they're doing this work, but it doesn't seem they're getting lots of support and contributions from most of the companies benefiting from SPDX, are they? Is your argument here that these tools are the more advanced, usable and feature-ful than the proprietary tools available that utilize SPDX? What it looks to me upon first analysis is that the Free Software tools are limping along without adequate funding, while the proprietary solutions flourish. Am I wrong about that? BTW, I know developers who'd be ready to help work on Free Software SPDX tools, but funding is a serious problem. If folks have thoughts about that, please do contact me off list. To be fair, of course the companies who have commercial scanning toolsI'm completely amazed to learn that customers *want* proprietary software. I've never seen someone say: "Please, don't give me the source code or the right to modify it for the software you're selling me." Do your customers actually say: "I really hope you'll take my software freedom away when you sell me your products!"? I don't sell proprietary software licenses for a living like many people on this list do, so I admit I have no first-hand experience in this area. But I'm nevertheless surprised that customers are *asking* to have software that doesn't give them software freedom. I'd bet it's more like they're helplessly begging their vendor to add features because they're locked-in in the usual proprietary way that the software freedom movement fights against. Anyway, what I think is happening in the SPDX project is that SPDX is primarily used as a marketing tool to sell proprietary software "compliance" solutions that won't solve the primary compliance problems of our day. Indeed, most of the SPDX process is being driven by companies that produce proprietary software, of the type I described in (b) above. Even if I were to get involved to attempt to fight this proprietary marketing push from within SPDX, these well-funded organizations bent on building more proprietary software and taking away software freedom from their users would overpower any advocacy or work that I did in SPDX against that idea. This is why I stopped participating in SPDX -- I realized there was nothing I could do to make SPDX good for software freedom. -- -- bkuhn
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
In so far as Phil and Michael's previous comment regarding the SPDX License List – it is correct to say that we have endeavored to include the most common open source licenses (not freeware, shareware,
various abominations of the above, proprietary, or what have you) as stated in the license list description at the top of the page found here: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list The goal is not to try
to capture every license you might find, as that would be impossible, but the most commonly found. There are currently 168 licenses on the SPDX License List. We have been discussing coordinating with a few of the community groups to add licenses they may
have, that SPDX doesn't (e.g. Gentoo, Fedora, Debian), but haven't had enough people-power to get this task completed (yet).
When I responded earlier, I did not mention this as I could not remember accurately if we discussed the idea of adding other "free" (but not necessary source-code-is-provided licenses). In any
case, it's certainly something we could discuss, but I think there are some good reasons not to expand too far (which I will raise if and when we have that discussion, instead of rattling on unnecessarily here) That being said, there are probably other licenses
that are not "open source" per se, but commonly found and lumped into that broader category (the Sun/Oracle license come to mind) that perhaps should be added.
In any case, anyone can suggest adding a license via this process: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added
We are largely "under-staffed" and "under-paid," so I would encourage anyone who wants to see the list expanded to get involved.
In regards to Michel's definition of "FOSS" for the purposes of contract negotiations and standardizing clauses – I don't have so much a problem with this name, per se. I
understand the reaction; "FOSS" has ideological underpinnings and is not thought of to include the second and third categories, so this is a bit uncomfortable. But, I guess when looking at it through
my attorney glasses, which is the lens for which these clauses are intended, I can compartmentalize and apply the definition as however it is presented for that particular contract. That is, after all, how contract definitions work. I have certainly
seen contract terms and definitions come across my desk, where I've thought, "well, that's not what I would have called that," but so long as I understand what that word
means in the context of that agreement, it really doesn't matter if it's called "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious."
Just my two cents.
Jilayne
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
OpenLogic, Inc. jlovejoy@... | 720
240 4545
From: <RUFFIN>, "MICHEL (MICHEL)" <michel.ruffin@...>
Date: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:57 PM To: "mike.milinkovich@..." <mike.milinkovich@...>, Soeren Rabenstein <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, "mjherzog@..." <mjherzog@...>, SPDX-general <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
|
|
|
|
Re: Import and export function of SPDX
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
I could not agree more. Rest assured, this has been discussed and there was very vociferous and unanimous agreement that the short identifiers should not change once created. So far, I believe we have stuck to that goal.
Jilayne
|
|
|
|
Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
Mahshad Koohgoli
How about
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
"Possibly Licensed Unpaid Software" - PLUS ?! Then we can have FOSSPLUS :)
-----Original Message-----
From: McGlade, Debra [mailto:dmcglade@...] Sent: 22-June-12 4:50 PM To: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); koohgoli@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 How about: "Possibly, Might-be free Software" (PMS) :) -Debbie -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:05 PM To: koohgoli@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 None of this expression is covering proprietary software delivered free of cost but with an EULA, except the last one but it is not very accurate Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France -----Message d'origine----- De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Mahshad Koohgoli Envoyé : vendredi 22 juin 2012 21:29 À : spdx@... Objet : RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 PDC- Public Domain Code? PAS- Publicly Accessible Software CAS- Community Accessible Software? GAC- Generally Accessible Code? -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of spdx-request@... Sent: 22-June-12 3:21 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Send Spdx mailing list submissions to spdx@... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to spdx-request@... You can reach the person managing the list at spdx-owner@... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Spdx digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX (Mike Milinkovich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 -0400 From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@...> To: "'RUFFIN, MICHEL \(MICHEL\)'" <michel.ruffin@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <mjherzog@...>, <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Message-ID: <038e01cd50ac$35a4eb50$a0eec1f0$@eclipse.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"? Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn! <<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >> More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately comes to mind. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ? Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 20:43 ? : RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: "?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; " I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection. In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 1:55 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term ?FOSS? is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not ?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance. Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] <mailto:%5bmailto:mike.milinkovich@...%5d> Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 19:25 ? : Soeren_Rabenstein@...; RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. " The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake. FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4]. I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons. In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkovich@... blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/attachments/20120622/7d7b16b7/attachme nt.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx End of Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 ************************************ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
|
|
|
Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
McGlade, Debra
How about:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
"Possibly, Might-be free Software" (PMS) :) -Debbie
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:05 PM To: koohgoli@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 None of this expression is covering proprietary software delivered free of cost but with an EULA, except the last one but it is not very accurate Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France -----Message d'origine----- De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Mahshad Koohgoli Envoyé : vendredi 22 juin 2012 21:29 À : spdx@... Objet : RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 PDC- Public Domain Code? PAS- Publicly Accessible Software CAS- Community Accessible Software? GAC- Generally Accessible Code? -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of spdx-request@... Sent: 22-June-12 3:21 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Send Spdx mailing list submissions to spdx@... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to spdx-request@... You can reach the person managing the list at spdx-owner@... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Spdx digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX (Mike Milinkovich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 -0400 From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@...> To: "'RUFFIN, MICHEL \(MICHEL\)'" <michel.ruffin@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <mjherzog@...>, <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Message-ID: <038e01cd50ac$35a4eb50$a0eec1f0$@eclipse.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"? Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn! <<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >> More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately comes to mind. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ? Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 20:43 ? : RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: "?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; " I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection. In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 1:55 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term ?FOSS? is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not ?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance. Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] <mailto:%5bmailto:mike.milinkovich@...%5d> Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 19:25 ? : Soeren_Rabenstein@...; RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. " The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake. FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4]. I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons. In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkovich@... blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/attachments/20120622/7d7b16b7/attachme nt.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx End of Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 ************************************ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
|
|
|
Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
RUFFIN MICHEL
None of this expression is covering proprietary software delivered free of cost but with an EULA, except the last one but it is not very accurate
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France
-----Message d'origine-----
De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Mahshad Koohgoli Envoyé : vendredi 22 juin 2012 21:29 À : spdx@... Objet : RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 PDC- Public Domain Code? PAS- Publicly Accessible Software CAS- Community Accessible Software? GAC- Generally Accessible Code? -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of spdx-request@... Sent: 22-June-12 3:21 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Send Spdx mailing list submissions to spdx@... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to spdx-request@... You can reach the person managing the list at spdx-owner@... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Spdx digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX (Mike Milinkovich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 -0400 From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@...> To: "'RUFFIN, MICHEL \(MICHEL\)'" <michel.ruffin@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <mjherzog@...>, <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Message-ID: <038e01cd50ac$35a4eb50$a0eec1f0$@eclipse.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"? Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn! <<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >> More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately comes to mind. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ? Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 20:43 ? : RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: "?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; " I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection. In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 1:55 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term ?FOSS? is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not ?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance. Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] <mailto:%5bmailto:mike.milinkovich@...%5d> Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 19:25 ? : Soeren_Rabenstein@...; RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. " The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake. FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4]. I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons. In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkovich@... blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/attachments/20120622/7d7b16b7/attachme nt.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx End of Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 ************************************ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
|
|
|
Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
Mahshad Koohgoli
PDC- Public Domain Code?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
PAS- Publicly Accessible Software CAS- Community Accessible Software? GAC- Generally Accessible Code?
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of spdx-request@... Sent: 22-June-12 3:21 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Send Spdx mailing list submissions to spdx@... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to spdx-request@... You can reach the person managing the list at spdx-owner@... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Spdx digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX (Mike Milinkovich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 -0400 From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@...> To: "'RUFFIN, MICHEL \(MICHEL\)'" <michel.ruffin@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <mjherzog@...>, <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Message-ID: <038e01cd50ac$35a4eb50$a0eec1f0$@eclipse.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"? Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn! <<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >> More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately comes to mind. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ? Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 20:43 ? : RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: "?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; " I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection. In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken. From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...] Sent: June-22-12 1:55 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term ?FOSS? is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not ?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source software?; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance. Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France _____ De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...] <mailto:%5bmailto:mike.milinkovich@...%5d> Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 19:25 ? : Soeren_Rabenstein@...; RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); mjherzog@...; spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. " The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake. FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4]. I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons. In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkovich@... blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/attachments/20120622/7d7b16b7/attachme nt.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx End of Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 ************************************
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Mike Milinkovich
RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"?
Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn!
<<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >>
More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately comes to mind.
From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...]
Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...; mjherzog@...; spdx@... Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ?
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Re: "“Free and Open source Software” it is “Free and/or Open source software”; "
I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection.
In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken.
From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...]
We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term “FOSS” is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not “Free and Open source Software” it is “Free and/or Open source software”; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance.
Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of “FOSS”. "
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake.
FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4].
I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons.
In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov
Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of “FOSS”.
|
|
|
|
Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
RUFFIN MICHEL
Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ?
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Re: "“Free and Open source Software” it is “Free and/or Open source software”; "
I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the intersection.
In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and the OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a bunch of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please (pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find some other name, because that one's taken.
From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL)
[mailto:michel.ruffin@...]
We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term “FOSS” is chocking you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me FOSS is not “Free and Open source Software” it is “Free and/or Open source software”; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance.
Michel Michel.Ruffin@...,
PhD De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of “FOSS”. "
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any attempt to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a big mistake.
FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4].
I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes and the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons.
In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the Eclipse Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/ twitter: @mmilinkov
Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of “FOSS”.
|
|
|