On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin writes:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >[...] I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile
> > >component, if that "data file" is really some sort of program that
> > >has sources which
Chow Loong Jin writes:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...] I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile
> >component, if that "data file" is really some sort of program that
> >has sources which aren't usable. How is that jar different from a
> >PDF in this way?
>
Hi,
I'm taking a look at packaging the game Cluedome:
http://www.cluedome.com/
I'm wondering if there are any copyright concerns. The game advertises itself
as a clone, and the source ships with an example game rules rule and image --
which match that of the board came Clue/Cluedo.
Fo
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:23:21PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor,
> > Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or
> > develop on an alternative A's appl
On Fri Mar 27 14:57, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...]
> > I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile component, if
> > that "data file" is really some sort of program that has sources which
> > aren't usable. How is that jar different fro
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
>[...]
> I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile component, if
> that "data file" is really some sort of program that has sources which
> aren't usable. How is that jar different from a PDF in this way?
Unless I'm mistaken, a PDF witho
Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:24 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> > > For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> > > binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> > > is distributed in the tarball. I
Hi Leandro,
thanks for your response and especially for the link you posted. :-)
Leandro Doctors schrieb:
...But you can mix code licensed under the ASLv2 with code licensed
under the GPLv3[0]. (In fact, AFAIC, to improve license compatibility
-in this case, with the ASLv2- was one of the objec
I have to make a correction from my earlier post. I said:
core library licensed under GPLv2
This is not true. See [1] for the core xdoclet license which doesn't
seem to be any standard license. Some other (parts of) xdoclet modules
are licensed under GPLv2, however.
The basic question ther
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:24 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> > For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> > binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> > is distributed in the tarball. I have contacted the upstream develop
Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> is distributed in the tarball. I have contacted the upstream developer
> about this issue, and he will be releasing another t
2009/3/27 Florian Grandel :
> From what I read, I understood that I cannot re-license something that has
> been Apache 2.0 as GPLv2 or vice versa.
...But you can mix code licensed under the ASLv2 with code licensed
under the GPLv3[0]. (In fact, AFAIC, to improve license compatibility
-in this case,
12 matches
Mail list logo
