[License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[Chris Ochs]

I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github
repo with the open source license.   They just aren't including that
license in the copy that they release through this company.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Fleming <kevin+osi at kpfleming.us>
wrote:

>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs <chris at ochsnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of these addons are themselves open source.  The majority of the
>> time the authors of these are not including the open source license.  Which
>> I think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual
>> license, but not an attorney so not sure on this.
>
>
>
> Snip:
> Some of these addons are themselves open source.  The majority of the time
> the authors of these are not including the open source license.  Which I
> think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license,
> but not an attorney so not sure on this.
>
> How do you know they are 'open source' if they don't include an open
> source license? Are the completely original works, or do they contain works
> from others that are distributed under open source licenses?
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150826/8ee92dbf/attachment.html>