On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:20:32AM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> > > for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> > for either of the two ways to include the license I described above
> > would
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
> What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> for either of the two ways to include the license I described above
> would work well. Comments?
We should adjust the CC list
On 22 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> I'm not asking anyone to do that. :) That's a lot of work. Personally,
> I think that if either the testers or the upload processing just checked
> for a license statement in some standard location (a LICENSE section in
> the POD text, a LICENSE fil
Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
>> I believe that the legal liability of the archive maintainers is
>> precisely the same whether you ask for explicit license statements or
>> not. I pulled out and objected specifically to your previous s
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for grins I looked to see how you license your modules. Your
> license/copyright statement is in the README, not the POD so after
> the module is installed, the license statement disappears [ unless
> the user keeps the source d
Submitted to gnats
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Tromey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:36 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: make distclean with subdirobjects
>
>
> > "Robert" == Robert Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ
Well, for grins I looked to see how you license your modules. Your
license/copyright statement is in the README, not the POD so after the
module is installed, the license statement disappears [ unless the user
keeps the source dir around ]. The user, in the future will either need
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:50:13PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:30:08AM +0200, Jens Krüger wrote:
: > : What is the meaning of the '--amdir=DIR' option?
:
: > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Lars> To specify another dir for the Automake templates
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:30:08AM +0200, Jens Krüger wrote:
> : What is the meaning of the '--amdir=DIR' option?
Lars> To specify another dir for the Automake templates you usually find in
Lars> /usr/share/automake/ or /usr/local/share/au
Personally, I don't care if people use the GPL, AL, BSD or make up their
own... it is open source and it is not demo
or commercial-ware, etc.
I think you and I are talking at cross purposes--addressing two
different questions. This miscommunication has continued through
several mssa
Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>you're already worrying about. I'm just pointing out that if you believe
*>there is something in this archiving process that incurs legal liability,
*>being an ostrich about licensing isn't protecting you from it.
In the days of litigation and one-cli
I just did a cvs checkout of automake, all the tests pass, but believe it
or not:
# automake --version
Automake::register_language() called too early to check prototype at
/usr/local/bin/automake line 741.
Automake::register_language() called too early to check prototype at
/usr/local/bin/autom
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In certain cases, where you know the licenses of certain modules, you
> can put in explicit statements yourselves, following statements from the
> author. Otherwise, I suggest moving the problem modules outside of the
> public tree, and inviting the
Akim> Now the question is how will be install it? Do we try to get
Akim> into Perl's packaging system, or just have some pkglibdir and
Akim> install it in there? The same question will arise when we move
Akim> Language, Macro, Rule etc. out of automake.in.
What do we gain from trying to make it
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> Is this a known bug? Am I doing something wrong?
I don't think it is known. There shouldn't be anything for you to do
wrong -- this should work automatically.
Thanks for the report. If it isn't a pain for you could you submi
Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>> Were we to get into the business of requiring licenses we would also
*>> have to do the task of checking for and possibly removing items that are
*>> of potential legal liability.
*>
*>You seem to be under the impression that not requiring license sta
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Akim> Now the question is how will be install it? Do we try to get
> Akim> into Perl's packaging system, or just have some pkglibdir and
> Akim> install it in there? The same question will arise when we move
> Akim> Language, Macro, Rule etc. out of auto
Narrowing the Cc line somewhat
Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
>> You seem to be under the impression that not requiring license
>> statements somehow reduces your legal liability. I'm fairly certain
>> that this is not actually corr
On Apr 19, 2001, Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still, however, strongly recommend good legal counsel to those whom the
> nuances of the license matter greatly since each situation is unique.
For a module without explicit licensing terms, I suppose the best a
lawyer could sa
20 matches
Mail list logo
