The following is intended to be a compression of your comments down into the
most important points (generally, the areas you are concerned about),
to aid further discussion. As well as some responses to your comments. (I
had to manually fix the quoting, so apologies if I mess it up somewhere).
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > You propose to create another copyleft license which is
> > incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses.
>
> Could you please explain how it is incompatible with popular
> copyleft licenses?
Most copyleft licen
Don Armstrong wrote:
> You propose to create another copyleft license which is
> incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses.
Could you please explain how it is incompatible with popular
copyleft licenses?
>From my understanding, even the popular ones (GPL and MPL) are
incompatible
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> These copies and portions shall be distributed along with their
> source code.
> Is that better?
Perhaps, but it's only a very, very weak copy
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Suraj N. Kurapati:
>
>> (a) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> These copies and portions shall be distributed in source code form.
>
> Your proposed changes seem to rule out
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
> > previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> > GPLv2... :-(
[...]
> > I would like to see clause 5d dropped entirely.
>
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and
> comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT
> license[2].
I'm not even going to bother reading and reviewing the following
license for the following reasons:
1) Con
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
> (a) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> These copies and portions shall be distributed in source code form.
Your proposed changes seem to rule out the distribution of binaries.
Hello,
I had been using the GPL for some years without fully understanding
its implications. Recently, I spent some time thinking about my
ethical beliefs regarding free software and discovered that I prefer
something like Creative Commons' by-sa (attribution + share-alike)
license. That is, I wan
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to previous
drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-(
It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to freeness.
Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an interactive
10 matches
Mail list logo
