Hello all, I stumbled across an effort similar to ours: http://www.faircopy.com/ It's about distribution of digital content, where everybody can join in the...
... I suggest the URL for any SDC-selected license including FSL be simply http://softdevelcoop.org No deep linking, as the site structure might change. Now,...
... There is no proper URL. The license's not finished yet, I advice people not to use the license for anything yet, and therefore I see no real need to put...
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] ... What about the draft is is still a draft (except council review)? I was using mostly the short version...
... I'm not so sure about some changes I have made (going from WWPL 0.4 to FSL 0.1). I have to look those over again first. ... You mean the copyright &...
... Oh, and please pay special attention to the following parts: - The definition of Original Work. It now includes compiled works, so they fall under the...
... Anywhere people would like to stick a copy of it? I like it that if people download a copy of my software from, they can get the applicable license from...
... I know this effect usually takes place--and that is fortunate--but it's wise to have a kind of official primary URL, as the famous GPL does. If that is...
... What version did you read? My most recent version includes my email address. Not yours though, since I still have to name you as copyright holder, but...
... No, I agree that the official URL mentioned in the license should be softdevelcoop.org. I can always mention saxnot.com in the license notice in my work,...
Hello people, Currently, the last paragraph in section 2.1 of the FSL only explicitly allows waivers for copyright on portions of the work. Maybe this should...
... Oops... Done. ... I'm writing in plain text. ... No, it's not disappearing, but it was just an idea, if you don't like the possible workload. I don't think...
Hmmm, a thought just popped up. Isn't it customary that a copyright holder pays the patent holder royalties? I mean, if you buy a piece of software, you pay a...
Hello group, I've got one more point, before I consider FSL version 1 to be production ready: Section 3.2., Derivative Works. This allows people to take the...
... Yes, drop 3.2. Actually I think the whole section 3 can be dropped. I fail to see any effect of it that is either wanted or requiring explicitation....
... I think you're right. Section 3.1 is, strictly speaking, unnecessary, since applicable law will already prohibit you from using something covered by a...
Section 2.1 says: (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for portions that You delete from the Covered Work; 2) separate...
While I was at it, I had another look at the FSL, and found the following portion eligible for deletion: Section 2.6, 2nd half: [You may choose to offer, and...
Hi all, I've been working on the FSL again tonight. I have shortened the license, by ommitting anything that stated the obvious (ie. clauses that only repated...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
