Have you seen a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) that's made to a single commercial entity (so foundations or non-profits excluded) that does not reserve the right to sub-/dual-/re-license on their part unilaterally? (Where?)
Or: have there been legally binding restrictions on the licenses that they might choose?
Is there an AGPL-like strong copyleft license that is easy to understand, uses clear and unambiguous wording and is internationally applicable (e.g. in Germany)? #foss#licensing
2 days ago #HomeAssistant landed a PR (in its "assets" repo, not the codebase) that added an exception to the repo's #licensing language stating that "this logo is not released under the CC license. All rights reserved."
The whole repo, however, remains under CC-BY-NC-SA as per its LICENSE.md file.
A project I contributed a small amount to, recently added a license: #CommonsCause and I thought no much of it, until they started claiming that this license is “open source”
I created a pull request to replace it with “source available” but was rejected
Basically, Synergy (cross-platform keyboard and mouse sharing software) once was a one-time purchase, then moved to a subscription model. They took great pains to specify the new maintenance license did not apply to existing early adopters - see email below.
And then today I get this message saying my license is about to expire !
Is it even legal to pull something like this? In any case it's not a great way to treat early adopters !
In the context of guarding against mixing proprietary data with open data and thereby producing an output that can't be licensed openly, how much proprietary data is too much?
If I were to (say) estimate historical hourly electricity demand by county using only open data, and then I compared my output with a commercial dataset to see whether they agree that seems like it would be fine. Right?
(neo)’liberal’ licenses like MIT and BSD that enable corporations to partake of the free labour of others
implying that the #GPL / #AGPL doesn't let corps partake in the free labor of others too> and enclose the commons
Your "open commons" is worthless if it's effectively still proprietary. Case in point: #Mastodon's #ActivityPub extensions that pretty much everybody else have to support (Mastodon is AGPL, and it's not realistic to implement ActivityPub strictly to the spec and expect it to be compatible with Mastodon). Or GNUisms (implemented by #GNU software which are GPL) that #BSD userlands are forced to support. Or #Matrix where there's basically only one server implementation that is usable (#Synapse whichis AGPL). I could go on and on.
Is there a convenient open licence for releasing all of the code within a project as much as CC0, while reserving all rights over everything else? (Images, story, characters, etc) #GameDev#OpenSource#Licensing
🇺🇸 Does anyone happen to know what is the #licensing of using #SFSymbols from #Apple? I want to do a presentation about smart home and use these icons in it. I warn you that the topic is not limited to Apple solutions onl
🇵🇱 Czy ktoś orientuje się może jak wygląda licencyjnie korzystanie z #SFSymbols od #Apple? Chcę zrobić prezentację na temat inteligentnego domu i wykorzystać w nim te ikony. Uprzedzam, że temat nie ogranicza się tylko do rozwiązań Apple
A treatment for HIV taken just once, using the genome-editing technology Crispr, is receiving fast-track designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Oracle's revised Java licensing terms 2-5x more expensive (www.theregister.com)
One in five users can expect an audit in the next three years