Viktor Szakáts wrote:
Hi Phil,
You write about code, while my intent isn't to change any code
license at all. My intent is to *add* license for non-code, particularly
my non-code parts and future additions, these parts didn't have any
license so far. Having two licenses is no problem at all, since code
and non-code (docs/text) are two different things with very different
licensing issues, hence FSF came out with GFDL and that's the whole
point of CC's existence. Code and non-code are very easy to distinguish
by the file type. This new license is endorsed by both FSF and CC,
and even by Debian, or at least the goal is that they be compatible with
all important entities.
So, you want to license the change log? If we are adding licenses to
unlicensed things, I don't have a problem with that.
Please be more specific what kind of disaster you expect here.
[ Flagging this as "vanity" is yet another interesting attribute I see
here,
and I don't even want to go great length into this, some of us were
contributing for many years, for a huge amount of time and watching names
hidden, yes, it is bothering. For me this is the only kind of reward I
may be
getting for all this, and this doesn't cost money even. I'm just using
some
free licenses to protect my works, this is fair and legal, and notice
that
I've chosen fairly allowing alternatives to resolve this issue. ]
Brgds,
Viktor
I"m sure you have heard the term, 'Standing on the Shoulders of Giants'
before. When you write code, you stand on the Shoulders of other Giants.
The guys that wrote the operating system, the people who created the
computer, the teams that created the compilers, etc.
When other people borrow from your work and stand on top of it, You are
the Giant. To me, this seems like flattery, not lack of reward. I guess
we all view this differently.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
