By: Chris Travers

August 2007

• Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code
• Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Community 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: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• 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: 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
• BSDL/GPL v3 compatibility
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• We need list rules, was 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: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: Proposal for change to OSD#9
• Re: (OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: OT - GNU Contract Law Theory: ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION
• 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: OT - GNU Contract Law Theory: ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION
• Re: (OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
• 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: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3

September 2007

• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: BSDL/GPL v3 compatibility
• Public Domain vs License, was For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: [OT] Noise filter, was: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: what *is* the approval process?
• Re: what *is* the approval process?
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Thoughts on approval process and license proliferation
• Re: Permissive license proliferation
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: [OT] Noise filter, was: For Approval: GPLv3
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Using collective-work copyright to upgrade from GPL v2 to v3
• Re: Using collective-work copyright to upgrade from GPL v2 to v3
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: a plea
• Re: [META] a plea
• Re: [META] a plea
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: a plea
• Re: a plea
• Re: a plea
• 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: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Automatic GPL termination
• Re: Off-topic 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: 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: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Promotion of derived products, the Microsoft case (was: Scope of copyright on derivative works)
• Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
• Re: Promotion of derived products, the Microsoft case (was: Scope of copyright on derivative works)
• 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
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

October 2007

• Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT licenses
• Re: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT licenses
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Reciprocal License
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Reciprocal 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
• For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: Microsoft Public License
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• [OT] Fee-based certification of open source, was Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• 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: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: Frameworx license clause 3b
• 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: 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: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: AFL source code obligation
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
• Re: rms@1407.org claiming "licenses aren't contracts" and that...
• Re: Blogger claiming "shared source" is approved by OSI

November 2007

• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Microsoft's Open Source Licenses
• Re: Microsoft's Open Source Licenses
• Re: For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: [OT] For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics
• Re: Improving the License Approval Proces (Was: FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics)
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Communication skills
• Re: Code of Conduct
• Re: Open Source vs opensource
• Re: MS-RL equivalents?
• Re: MS-RL equivalents?
• Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: ECL 2.0 and New Questions!
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: ECL 2.0 and New Questions!
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
• license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Editorial Board
• Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Status update request
• Re: Question about documentation and patents
• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

December 2007

• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: Take 3: Editors and Trackers
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)
• Re: Take 3: Editors and Trackers
• Re: Take 3: Editors and Trackers
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: Take 3: Editors and Trackers
• Re: EULA and Modifed BSD
• Re: Question about documentation and patents
• Re: EULA and Modifed BSD
• Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: EULA and Modifed BSD
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: EULA and Modifed BSD
• Forced distribution licenses (AGPL/OSL/etc): Why not.
• Re: When to evaluate dual licenses
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Question on OSD #5
• Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

---