On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 23:30, Eloi wrote:
>
> El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> > 2. Sencha releases as GPLv3 only the first major version and the first
> > minor version of a new release, and only release as proprietary the
> > code the successive minor versions (that can largerl
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Jakma wrote:
Much easier would be a licence where all you had to show was that the
software was passed on, and that that act on its own was sufficient to
trigger the general source distribution requirement (modulo "desert island",
etc., which pretty obviously do not a
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Eloi Notario wrote:
Furthermore, these patches will be protected by the GPLv3 and even if
publicly available Sencha will be unable to sell them,
Probably you know this, and you meant "sell them exclusively or
somesuch", but just to note:
Nothing in the GPL prevents one
El 11/12/18 a les 22:33, Giacomo ha escrit:
> On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario wrote:
>> El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>>> [...]
>>> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the
>> Hacking
>>> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any ver
On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario wrote:
>El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>> [...]
>> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the
>Hacking
>> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary.
>
>Being Sencha the copyright owner
El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> [...]
> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the Hacking
> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary.
Being Sencha the copyright owner (noting for clarity as I cut that from
the quote), I am quite sk
Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio, clicca qui:
http://www.mailant.it/nl.aspx?idp=14715&idn=101034&cvp=0E2FA94E582CE1334891A9A307CD9E07B21F6098&idu=6388417&cvup=A0C054D045F9E72E2A2E5836C01B76DB4EDE4FB6
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:06, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Unless there is some really compelling reason the modifier can not make
their changes available (desert island, dissident), why not just require
they make the
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:06, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > The point is, made available to whom?
>
> To anyone.
> Unless there is some really compelling reason the modifier can not make
> their changes available (desert island, dissident), why not just require
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:22, Paul Jakma wrote:
Personally, I want a copyleft for the 'gitlab/github/gogs' era: Source
must be made available, unless you're on a desert island or there is a
credibly physical risk of imprisonment or harm to individuals
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:22, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> Personally, I want a copyleft for the 'gitlab/github/gogs' era: Source
> must be made available, unless you're on a desert island or there is a
> credibly physical risk of imprisonment or harm to individuals by
> disclosing their identity.
The p
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Wise wrote:
If you are talking about grsecurity,
Had more personally significant cases in mind, not GrSec per se, but
GrSecurity is an example, on the contract side.
That said, wrt "abusive corporates", I'd put GrSec more on the /victim/
side, and I have some symp
Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 06:15 Paul Wise ha scritto:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:45 AM Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> > There is an issue with the GPL style copyleft of abuse by corporates. In
> > particular, abusing the ability to discharge source distribution
> > privately, and then using var
13 matches
Mail list logo
