[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 8
Gustavo G. Mármol
gustavo.marmol at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 00:20:16 UTC 2018
Hi Scott,
Many thanks for your prompt response. I think it would be worth noting that
it was not part of the discussion whether or not a distributor of a product
that includes software licensed under the GPL can or cannot use an upstream
supplier's written offer as a part of compliance with the source
availability requirement of the GPL. Certainly, I do believe that a
commercial distributor can use their upstream supplier´s written source
code offer as it was their "own written source code offer" and that
commercial distributor not needs to implement its own separate fulfillment
process for receiving requests and sending source code responses.
A vendor normally authorizes dozens of commercial distributors by country,
so if each distributor (distributing the same hardware equipment in a
country region) should be obligated to implement a separate process to
provide a written source code offer, it would be troublesome and possible
not aligned with the GPL interests. The situation that I have mentioned
previously is related when the written source code offer is making only at
the top of the distributions chain but without the commercial distributors
-for unknown reasons- provides a written offer, be using their upstream
supplier´s written offer as it was their own source code written offer or
any other form agreed with their upstream vendor.
Thus, when I have stated "I would agree that from GPLv2 text would emerge
that commercial redistributions must provide their own source code offer,
and they cannot be beneficiaries of the original distributor/manufacturer
source code offer", meaning that they should provide their own source code
written offer possibly using their supplier written offer as it was their
own offer to comply with, using the implemented process by their upstream´s
vendor or any other form agreed with their upstream vendor.
Many Thanks, Gustavo G. Mármol Alioto.
El mié., 8 ago. 2018 a las 18:20, <
license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org> escribió:
> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6 (Scott Peterson)
> 2. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6 (Bruce Perens)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:11:22 -0400
> From: Scott Peterson <speterso at redhat.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6
> Message-ID:
> <CALORxP=
> WvCpAwZnBC2GydZxkajHSkuCsjQatw6Kq7xfHLrtXfw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Gustavo --
>
> There is no reason that a distributor of a product that includes software
> licensed under the GPL cannot use an upstream supplier's written offer as a
> part of compliance with the source availability requirement of the GPL. The
> point of option c is to say that for certain non-commercial distribution,
> passing along the upstream written offer is sufficient. Option b does not
> preclude use of the upstream written offer: merely passing along that
> written offer is not by itself sufficient; the offer actually needs to be
> an effective offer--requests are actually fulfilled.
>
> Consider a downstream distributor of a product that includes GPL-licensed
> software. That distributor includes its upstream supplier's written offer.
> That written offer is real; requests sent in response to that written offer
> are fulfilled. That downstream distributor has not failed to comply with
> the GPL merely because it did not write its own written offer and did not
> not implement its own separate fulfillment process for receiving requests
> and sending source code responses. This use of an upstream supplier's
> effective written offer complies with the GPL. If the upstream supplier
> disappears or otherwise fails to fulfill requests based on the offer, then
> the downstream distributor has a problem; unlike someone qualifying under
> option c, the commercial distributor is not off the hook simply because it
> passed on the offer.
>
> If what matters is the name on the offer (not whether the offer is
> effective), then that would be a GPL that serves the interests of
> troll-oriented "compliance enforcement", not the interests that the GPL
> seeks to serve. I do not believe that that is what is intended in the GPL.
>
> -- Scott
>
> Scott K Peterson
>
> Senior Commercial Counsel
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM Gustavo G. M?rmol <
> gustavo.marmol at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Bruce, just a few comments about what you have stated:
> >
> > *This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing
> Linux
> > and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would eventually
> be
> > traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto part
> > manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands
> > integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code distribution
> > responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact
> > information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source
> > code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm aware,
> > this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have
> > settled upon". *
> >
> > 1- *"I told them to fulfill the source code distribution responsibility
> > for all downstream parties, and to publish contact information for their
> > dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately
> > it's on their public website"*: My opinion is restricted to Argentina,
> > which is the country where I admitted to the bar: That fact (to assume
> > responsibility for third parties obligations) it does not change the
> > commercial redistributor obligations under what is expressly stated in
> the
> > license text, but certainly I do agree about what you have suggested in
> the
> > past, in the sense that it could help to reduce and mitigate potential
> > risks for compliance issues if that is agreed in the distribution
> agreement
> > between parties (that?s to say, in written).
> >
> > 2. With respect to: "*and to publish contact information for their
> > dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately
> > it's on their public web site". *I also agree that it could work for some
> > business scenarios but not for all. Some of the issues regarding "to
> have a
> > list with commercial distributors in the same webpage of the
> manufacturer"
> > when the manufacturer operates worldwide are not directly related to open
> > source compliance, but most with who is "an authorized reseller to do
> > business with the manufacturer". Somehow this point is very sensitive
> since
> > many time commercial partner information publicly available in good faith
> > by the manufacturer have been misused and misrepresented to do business
> > with public entities (partner agreement has an express term, once expired
> > should be approved a new distribution agreement. many times the
> agreements
> > are not renewed due by non-performance or compliance issues. Having a
> > commercial distributor list country by country updated (date/time) is not
> > feasible in practical terms). As I said, in my experience manufacturer
> are
> > jealous to make public available who are they authorized country?s
> > resellers to distributes (except for worldwide OEM and ISV that are most
> > recognizable enterprises) their products (with GPL license obligations &
> > 3.), especially in countries where corruption index is no satisfactory,
> due
> > to FCPA regulations applicable in foreign countries.
> >
> > El mi?., 8 ago. 2018 a las 9:00, <
> > license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org> escribi?:
> >
> >> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
> >> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4 (Bruce Perens)
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:50:26 -0700
> >> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> >> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <CAGaT-eB+7yw-Pxx5eL522pGZN0+Gc1aLJbAC=
> >> Oo5hkQn3D4_0w at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >> This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing
> Linux
> >> and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would eventually
> >> be
> >> traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto part
> >> manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands
> >> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code
> distribution
> >> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact
> >> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source
> >> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm
> aware,
> >> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have
> >> settled upon.
> >>
> >> There are things you should consider before distributing the source code
> >> with the product. Nobody keeps the box, the manual, and the included
> >> software CD. These things go in landfills. If you convey the source code
> >> on
> >> the products own storage media, about 1 in 10,000 users is going to
> >> download it before erasing it, and you've made the product that much
> >> harder
> >> to install for the other 9999 by adding an additional step of deleting
> the
> >> source code. And then when some user figures out that they _do_ want the
> >> source code, it's gone, and the manufacturer can say "I gave it to you
> >> once" instead of providing it online.
> >>
> >> The burden of providing source code on a web site is not a high one.
> It's
> >> overstating to call it "unlimited liability", even if it may be a
> >> never-ending task.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM, David Woolley <
> forums at david-woolley.me.uk
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. M?rmol wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That?s to say, regardless of the quantities of commercial resellers
> >> that
> >> >> it could be in a "distribution binary product?s chain" the original
> >> >> distributor/manufacturer would be the party that in practical terms
> >> would
> >> >> provide "the source code offer" to the "final licensee or end users"
> >> >> (despite the fact that the original distributor/manufacturer has no
> >> >> contractual relationship with the commercial redistributor?s end
> >> >> user/customer) and not the commercial redistributors (authorized by
> the
> >> >> original distributor/manufacturer to distributes their products).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The whole public licence concept is based on the idea that rights can
> be
> >> > given without a direct contract.
> >> >
> >> > The final distribution step can be non-commercial, leading to an
> >> unlimited
> >> > liability on the last commercial distributor.
> >> >
> >> > As I remarked, up-thread, it is fairly clear that the intent is to
> >> > strongly encourage commercial distributors to provide the source code
> at
> >> > the same time as the binary. By doing that, they no longer have any
> >> > obligation.
> >> >
> >> > I think the practice of making the offer at the top of distribution
> also
> >> > applies to embedded linux systems in the UK, e.g. set top boxes.
> >> Although
> >> > it may technically violate the licence, I think that licensors tend to
> >> take
> >> > the view that it does still achieve the spirit of the licence, namely
> >> that
> >> > end users are assured of being able to obtain a copy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > License-discuss mailing list
> >> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> >> > _lists.opensource.org
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> >> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open
> >> Source Initiative
> >> President, Open Research Institute
> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL: <
> >>
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180807/810036d3/attachment-0001.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> License-discuss mailing list
> >> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6
> >> **********************************************
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180808/6e349318/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:19:59 -0700
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6
> Message-ID:
> <CAGaT-eACmPVq+Vc+tpY3RLahckf=
> pH132Y1jNhewuaC8rCLD_g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It's also possible for a company, including the upstream manufacturer, to
> formally contract to perform another entity's GPL source code fulfillment.
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Scott Peterson <speterso at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Gustavo --
> >
> > There is no reason that a distributor of a product that includes software
> > licensed under the GPL cannot use an upstream supplier's written offer
> as a
> > part of compliance with the source availability requirement of the GPL.
> The
> > point of option c is to say that for certain non-commercial distribution,
> > passing along the upstream written offer is sufficient. Option b does not
> > preclude use of the upstream written offer: merely passing along that
> > written offer is not by itself sufficient; the offer actually needs to be
> > an effective offer--requests are actually fulfilled.
> >
> > Consider a downstream distributor of a product that includes GPL-licensed
> > software. That distributor includes its upstream supplier's written
> offer.
> > That written offer is real; requests sent in response to that written
> offer
> > are fulfilled. That downstream distributor has not failed to comply with
> > the GPL merely because it did not write its own written offer and did not
> > not implement its own separate fulfillment process for receiving requests
> > and sending source code responses. This use of an upstream supplier's
> > effective written offer complies with the GPL. If the upstream supplier
> > disappears or otherwise fails to fulfill requests based on the offer,
> then
> > the downstream distributor has a problem; unlike someone qualifying under
> > option c, the commercial distributor is not off the hook simply because
> it
> > passed on the offer.
> >
> > If what matters is the name on the offer (not whether the offer is
> > effective), then that would be a GPL that serves the interests of
> > troll-oriented "compliance enforcement", not the interests that the GPL
> > seeks to serve. I do not believe that that is what is intended in the
> GPL.
> >
> > -- Scott
> >
> > Scott K Peterson
> >
> > Senior Commercial Counsel
> >
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM Gustavo G. M?rmol <
> > gustavo.marmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bruce, just a few comments about what you have stated:
> >>
> >> *This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing
> >> Linux and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would
> >> eventually be traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major
> auto
> >> part manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile
> brands
> >> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code
> distribution
> >> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact
> >> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source
> >> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm
> aware,
> >> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have
> >> settled upon". *
> >>
> >> 1- *"I told them to fulfill the source code distribution responsibility
> >> for all downstream parties, and to publish contact information for their
> >> dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately
> >> it's on their public website"*: My opinion is restricted to Argentina,
> >> which is the country where I admitted to the bar: That fact (to assume
> >> responsibility for third parties obligations) it does not change the
> >> commercial redistributor obligations under what is expressly stated in
> the
> >> license text, but certainly I do agree about what you have suggested in
> the
> >> past, in the sense that it could help to reduce and mitigate potential
> >> risks for compliance issues if that is agreed in the distribution
> agreement
> >> between parties (that?s to say, in written).
> >>
> >> 2. With respect to: "*and to publish contact information for their
> >> dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately
> >> it's on their public web site". *I also agree that it could work for
> >> some business scenarios but not for all. Some of the issues regarding
> "to
> >> have a list with commercial distributors in the same webpage of the
> >> manufacturer" when the manufacturer operates worldwide are not directly
> >> related to open source compliance, but most with who is "an authorized
> >> reseller to do business with the manufacturer". Somehow this point is
> very
> >> sensitive since many time commercial partner information publicly
> available
> >> in good faith by the manufacturer have been misused and misrepresented
> to
> >> do business with public entities (partner agreement has an express term,
> >> once expired should be approved a new distribution agreement. many times
> >> the agreements are not renewed due by non-performance or compliance
> issues.
> >> Having a commercial distributor list country by country updated
> (date/time)
> >> is not feasible in practical terms). As I said, in my experience
> >> manufacturer are jealous to make public available who are they
> authorized
> >> country?s resellers to distributes (except for worldwide OEM and ISV
> that
> >> are most recognizable enterprises) their products (with GPL license
> >> obligations & 3.), especially in countries where corruption index is no
> >> satisfactory, due to FCPA regulations applicable in foreign countries.
> >>
> >> El mi?., 8 ago. 2018 a las 9:00, <license-discuss-request@
> >> lists.opensource.org> escribi?:
> >>
> >>> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
> >>> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> >>> discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >>>
> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>> license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
> >>>
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>> license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
> >>>
> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4 (Bruce Perens)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:50:26 -0700
> >>> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> >>> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <CAGaT-eB+7yw-Pxx5eL522pGZN0+Gc1aLJbAC=Oo5hkQn3D4_0w at mail.
> >>> gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>>
> >>> This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing
> Linux
> >>> and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would
> eventually
> >>> be
> >>> traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto part
> >>> manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands
> >>> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code
> distribution
> >>> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact
> >>> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about
> "source
> >>> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm
> aware,
> >>> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have
> >>> settled upon.
> >>>
> >>> There are things you should consider before distributing the source
> code
> >>> with the product. Nobody keeps the box, the manual, and the included
> >>> software CD. These things go in landfills. If you convey the source
> code
> >>> on
> >>> the products own storage media, about 1 in 10,000 users is going to
> >>> download it before erasing it, and you've made the product that much
> >>> harder
> >>> to install for the other 9999 by adding an additional step of deleting
> >>> the
> >>> source code. And then when some user figures out that they _do_ want
> the
> >>> source code, it's gone, and the manufacturer can say "I gave it to you
> >>> once" instead of providing it online.
> >>>
> >>> The burden of providing source code on a web site is not a high one.
> It's
> >>> overstating to call it "unlimited liability", even if it may be a
> >>> never-ending task.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Bruce
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM, David Woolley <
> >>> forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. M?rmol wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> That?s to say, regardless of the quantities of commercial resellers
> >>> that
> >>> >> it could be in a "distribution binary product?s chain" the original
> >>> >> distributor/manufacturer would be the party that in practical terms
> >>> would
> >>> >> provide "the source code offer" to the "final licensee or end users"
> >>> >> (despite the fact that the original distributor/manufacturer has no
> >>> >> contractual relationship with the commercial redistributor?s end
> >>> >> user/customer) and not the commercial redistributors (authorized by
> >>> the
> >>> >> original distributor/manufacturer to distributes their products).
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > The whole public licence concept is based on the idea that rights can
> >>> be
> >>> > given without a direct contract.
> >>> >
> >>> > The final distribution step can be non-commercial, leading to an
> >>> unlimited
> >>> > liability on the last commercial distributor.
> >>> >
> >>> > As I remarked, up-thread, it is fairly clear that the intent is to
> >>> > strongly encourage commercial distributors to provide the source code
> >>> at
> >>> > the same time as the binary. By doing that, they no longer have any
> >>> > obligation.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think the practice of making the offer at the top of distribution
> >>> also
> >>> > applies to embedded linux systems in the UK, e.g. set top boxes.
> >>> Although
> >>> > it may technically violate the licence, I think that licensors tend
> to
> >>> take
> >>> > the view that it does still achieve the spirit of the licence, namely
> >>> that
> >>> > end users are assured of being able to obtain a copy.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > License-discuss mailing list
> >>> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> >>> > _lists.opensource.org
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> >>> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open
> >>> Source Initiative
> >>> President, Open Research Institute
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_
> >>>
> lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180807/810036d3/attachment-0001.html>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> License-discuss mailing list
> >>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> >>> discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6
> >>> **********************************************
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> License-discuss mailing list
> >> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> >> discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open
> Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180808/bff4a460/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 8
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180808/9aeee5b5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list