Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "free_and_gplv3_incompatible".
2014 Oct 08
0
Open Software License v. 3.0
...==============
--- share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733)
+++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy)
@@ -317,3 +317,12 @@
URL: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice
FOSS: no
Restricts_use: yes
+
+Name: Open Software License
+Abbrev: OSL
+Version: 3.0
+SSS: OSL-3.0
+FSF: free_and_GPLv3_incompatible (
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL)
+OSI: open (http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0)
+URL: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf
+FOSS: yes
The great advantage of OSL is that it's similar to AGPL in the means of
requesting the derivative works to be published...
2015 Apr 22
3
alternate licensing for package data?
...as is because of included data, data that is
needed to run realistic examples.
The problem could be picky packagers, but it is also reasonable that
well-known example data sets could be licensed differently.
share/licenses/license.db lists for example CC BY-SA 4.0 as both FOSS and
extensible but free_and_GPLv3_incompatible. One possibility I examined when
challenged was to place all such data files in a separate package, for
example under a CC license accepted by CRAN - I didn't complete the task,
but understand Ben's question as applying to the same question.
Roger
> >
> > cheers
> >...
2015 Apr 21
2
alternate licensing for package data?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Does anyone have speculations about the implications of the GPL for
data included in a package, or more generally for restricting use of data?
The specific use case is that I have a package which is otherwise
GPL (version unspecified at present). There are various data sets
included, but they are all essentially in the public domain. I'm