By: Rick Moen

October 1999

• Report on ssh 1.2.12 licencing
• GNU License for Hardware
• GNU License for Hardware
• Accusations, accusations, always accusations
• Accusations, accusations, always accusations
• Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

May 2000

• Eiffel Forum License

July 2000

• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
• prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury

August 2000

• License Approval Process
• License Approval Process
• License Approval Process
• Plan 9 license
• Plan 9 license
• Plan 9 license
• OpenSales -- DRAFT developers agreement

September 2000

• Plan 9 license
• OpenSales -- DRAFT developers agreement
• Plan 9 license
• Qt and the GPL
• Qt and the GPL
• Disallowing distribution of binaries
• simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)

October 2000

• simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
• Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?

November 2000

• LGPL clarification
• Free documentation licenses
• Free documentation licenses
• Free documentation licenses
• Free documentation licenses
• Free documentation licenses

December 2000

• Tarball licenses (was: Free documentation licenses)
• Tarball licenses (was: Free documentation licenses)
• Tarball licenses (was: Free documentation licenses)

January 2001

• Re: IPL as a burden
• Misunderstanding of the basics?
• Re: IPL as a burden
• The Toll Roads of Open Source
• The Toll Roads of Open Source
• The Toll Roads of Open Source
• Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
• Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
• Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)

February 2001

• Use of GPL without any intention to enforce
• boomberg bloopers
• What is Copyleft?

March 2001

• Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSI Intent

May 2001

• idle-priority: OWL R1

June 2001

• license submission: qmail
• SUN Binary Code License
• SUN Binary Code License
• license-mix, legal consequences?
• Real-World Copyright Assignment
• license-mix, legal consequences?
• Real-World Copyright Assignment
• Real-World Copyright Assignment

July 2001

• approved licenses web page not being updated

August 2001

• approved licenses web page not being updated
• Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
• Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
• Public Domain License

September 2001

• W3C license
• documentation
• W3C license
• W3C license
• W3C license
• W3C license
• RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
• Backlog assistance?
• Backlog assistance?
• Backlog assistance?
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
• GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
• OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
• click, click, boom
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• click, click, boom
• click, click, boom
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
• forums
• forums
• forums

October 2001

• The Invisible Hand

November 2001

• Software patents and copyrights

December 2001

• Two GPL Questions
• Two GPL Questions
• Two GPL Questions
• Two GPL Questions
• Two GPL Questions

January 2002

• Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
• open source licenses and algorithms
• open source licenses and algorithms
• Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

February 2002

• OFF-TOPIC: Qt history refresher course?
• OFF-TOPIC: Qt history refresher course?

March 2002

• Limiting the use of an OpenSource application
• request for approval of APOSSL
• request for approval of APOSSL
• request for approval of APOSSL
• Discuss: BSD Protection License
• Discuss: BSD Protection License
• Discuss: BSD Protection License
• Discuss: BSD Protection License
• Discuss: BSD Protection License

April 2002

• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Discuss: Request for OSI approval
• Are you RALLY serious?

May 2002

• GPL license and timeout

June 2002

• Changing the licensing terms for an application

August 2002

• Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
• Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
• Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

October 2002

• Partial OpenSource products/licenses?
• Copyright

November 2002

• [OT] TINLA
• [OT] TINLA
• [kmself@ix.netcom.com: Re: We are looking for an open source license that...]

March 2003

• Antiwar License
• Antiwar License
• Antiwar License
• Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)
• Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)
• legal issues under GPL
• Reverse Engineering and Derived Works in Open Source Licenses?
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Optimal license for Java projects ...
• Optimal license for Java projects ...
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list
• Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

April 2003

• Re: study of GNU GPL vs MS EULA
• Re: study of GNU GPL vs MS EULA
• Re: study of GNU GPL vs MS EULA

July 2003

• Microsoft's near-OSD-compliant shared source license
• Open source and trademarks
• Open source and trademarks
• is it just summertime?

August 2003

• Can abandonment be irrevocable?
• Can abandonment be irrevocable?

September 2003

• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
• For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

October 2003

• Facts please
• Facts please
• Facts please
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• OSD#5 needs a patch?
• Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
• Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
• Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?

November 2003

• mysql

December 2003

• Re: Vacation messages to list posts
• Why?
• Why?
• Why?
• Re: Why? & Re: Will we be sued?

February 2004

• IBM and Patents
• IBM and Patents

March 2004

• Help with license decision for "cluster" of similar projects
• A must read for license law

April 2004

• Proprietary software at opensource.org
• Open Content licenses

May 2004

• "open-source" x "free software"

June 2004

• Which license to use for MFC based software?
• Which license to use for MFC based software?
• Which license to use for MFC based software?
• Which license to use for MFC based software?
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• GPL and internal use
• Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
• the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: the provide, license verbs
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Re: Dual Licensing
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
• Dual license question
• Dual license question
• testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution

July 2004

• On the licensing terms of the open source licenses text
• Help Selecting License
• Help Selecting License

August 2004

• AFL - non-sublicenseable versus distributable
• The IBM Public License
• Redistribution constraint
• IBM's direction

September 2004

• For Approval: Allegro giftware license
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Allegro giftware license
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: compatibility and the OSD]
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Allegro giftware license
• For Approval: Allegro giftware license
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• Slashdotted blog - was RE: compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• For Approval: Academic Citing License
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD
• compatibility and the OSD

October 2004

• Creative Commons and public domain declarations
• Creative Commons and public domain declarations

November 2004

• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source
• Definition of open source

January 2005

• brainstorming

February 2005

• [OT] Russ Nelson's public relations
• [OT] Russ Nelson's public relations
• Permissions not granted by GPL

March 2005

• Three new proposed OSD terms
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence
• An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence

April 2005

• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• License Wizard; previously Re: An explanation of the difficulty of solving licenseproliferation in one sentence
• "Open Source Constitution"?
• OSI's war on corporate licenses
• OSI's war on corporate licenses
• "viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
• Mistaken statement about MPL?
• OSI's war on corporate licenses
• asymmetry?

August 2005

• Wondering if my license already exists

September 2005

• Administravia - list unsubscription
• Administravia - list unsubscription
• Administravia - list unsubscription
• Pre-existing purpose and value vs Adminstrative rules
• License Committee Report for September 2005
• Pre-existing purpose and value vs Adminstrative rules
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• selling GPL sources
• Restrictions in license
• Governance and responsibility
• Clamav License
• Restrictions in license

October 2005

• advertising clause / PKCS#11 header files
• For Approval: MindTree Public License
• For Approval: MindTree Public License

December 2005

• new licensing model
• Let me reply to finalize discussion

January 2006

• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• Question Regarding GPL
• GPL v3
• GPL v3
• GPL v3
• Attribution Notices

April 2006

• BitTorrent

May 2006

• Re: [Ebxmlrr-tech] License issue with our customer]
• Re: [Ebxmlrr-tech] License issue with our customer]
• Re: [Ebxmlrr-tech] License issue with our customer]
• Re: [Ebxmlrr-tech] License issue with our customer]
• Re: [Ebxmlrr-tech] License issue with our customer]

September 2006

• Re: Restriction on distribution by Novell?
• Re: Restriction on distribution by Novell?

November 2006

• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
• Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
• Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
• Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
• Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Re: Redefining GPL?

December 2006

• Re: GPL for JS libraries (Was: Re: Redefining GPL?)
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
• Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
• Re: Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
• Re: Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
• Re: Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark

January 2007

• Dialogue with Intalio about GAP
• Re: Use of "open source"
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: Use of "open source"
• Re: Interesting note on attribution and OSD #10
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: non-military use license
• Re: Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions (fwd)
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
• Re: Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
• Re: Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
• Re: SocialText AGAINST paper wiki page
• Re: SocialText AGAINST paper wiki page
• Re: Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
• Re: delite me from your mailing list
• Re: DELETE ME FROM THE MAILING LIST
• InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
• Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
• Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
• Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
• Re: Ethical Restriction

February 2007

• Re: Ethical Restriction
• Badgeware licences, Take Two (was: Ethical Restriction)
• Re: Badgeware licences, Take Two (was: Ethical Restriction)
• Re: Badgeware licences, Take Two
• Introducing Open Solutions Alliance
• Re: Introducing Open Solutions Alliance
• Re: Attribution & the Adaptive Public License
• Re: Attribution & the Adaptive Public License
• Re: Attribution & the Adaptive Public License
• Re: Introducing Open Solutions Alliance

March 2007

• Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences
• Re: Followup on Exhibit B licences

June 2007

• Re: For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)
• Re: when is an open source license open source?
• Re: when is an open source license open source?
• Re: For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)
• Re: For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

July 2007

• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: why is taking open-source code closed expensive?
• Re: Do I need to inform my employer before contributing to an Open Source Project?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
• Re: License Committee Report for July 2007
• Re: License Committee Report for July 2007
• Re: OSI approves CPAL at OSCON 2007
• Re: OSI approves CPAL at OSCON 2007
• Re: OSI approves CPAL at OSCON 2007

August 2007

• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
• Re: what *is* the approval process?
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Community License
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code
• Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Concerns relating to the FSF and Future Licenses
• Re: Concerns relating to the FSF and Future Licenses
• Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• When will CPAL actually be _used_?
• Re: When will CPAL actually be _used_?
• Re: When will CPAL actually be _used_?
• Re: GPL-compatible vs Free was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?)
• Re: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?)
• Re: Groklaw's OSI item
• Re: License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
• Re: We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
• Re: License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: (OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

September 2007

• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: [OT] Noise filter, was: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: what *is* the approval process?
• Re: what *is* the approval process?
• Re: License Committee Report for August 2007
• Re: For Approval: The Simplified BSD License
• Re: For Approval: The Simplified BSD License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: The Simplified BSD License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Using collective-work copyright to upgrade from GPL v2 to v3
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: [META] a plea
• Re: a plea
• Re: [META] a plea
• Re: OSI Approval process
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Promotion of derived products, the Microsoft case (was: Scope of copyright on derivative works)
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

October 2007

• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
• Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
• Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: Blogger claiming "shared source" is approved by OSI
• Re: rms@1407.org claiming "licenses aren't contracts" and that...
• Re: rms@1407.org claiming "licenses aren't contracts" and that...

November 2007

• Re: FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics
• Re: FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Code of Conduct
• Re: Open Source vs opensource
• Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• Re: Question on OSD #5

December 2007

• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)
• Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

January 2008

• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: Free vs. Open Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: Our Purpose (Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open)
• Re: Our Purpose (Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open)
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: Our Purpose (Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open)
• Re: written offer valid for any third party Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: written offer valid for any third party Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open - ethicality
• Re: written offer valid for any third party Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
• Re: written offer valid for any third party Re: OSI enforcement?
• Re: Convert GPL to MPL
• Re: [repost] [j@uriah.heep.sax.de: For Approval: The beer-ware license]
• Re: License committee report for January 2008
• Re: License committee report for January 2008
• Re: License committee report for January 2008
• Re: compatibility Re: License committee report for January 2008

February 2008

• Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
• Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
• Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
• Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
• Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
• Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
• Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
• Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)

March 2008

• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: Public domain software is not open-source?
• Re: MS continued attack on OSD #6
• Re: MS continued attack on OSD #6
• Re: GPL2 and IBM Public license
• Re: MS continued attack on OSD #6
• Re: MS continued attack on OSD #6
• Re: MS continued attack on OSD #6

April 2008

• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream
• Re: Implications for switching licenses mid-stream

July 2008

• Re: GPLv3 Appropriate Legal Notices and Restrictive Trademark Grants
• Re: GPLv3 Appropriate Legal Notices and Restrictive Trademark Grants
• Re: GPLv3 Appropriate Legal Notices and Restrictive Trademark Grants

August 2008

• Re: Creative Commons
• Re: Creative Commons
• Re: Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License (fwd)

March 2009

• Re: [RFC] Serious Open Source (SOS) License -- Injunctive Relief clause

June 2011

• Re: The Python licensing situation.
• Re: The Python licensing situation.
• Re: The Python licensing situation.
• Re: super small licenses, good or bad idea?
• Re: The Python licensing situation.

July 2011

• Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

August 2011

• Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
• Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
• Offering secondary nameservice (was: no www.opensource.org from AOL DNS)
• Re: Offering secondary nameservice

September 2011

• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
• Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?

---