Gervase Markham wrote:
> Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
>> 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-
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> So if you mix your code (under whatever licence you choose, provided
> it's compatible with the GPL), together with other peoples' GPL code,
> together with other peoples' code under GPL-compatible licences such as
> MIT, then...
>
> You can distribute the whole lot AS
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
for my source code and not go far as to restrict t
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
>> for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code to a
>> particular license. That is, I want to allow my code t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
4. Source
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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,
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
>> survey[3] of free software licenses):
>>
>> 4. Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
>>
>> I tried
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
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)
lice
Don Armstrong wrote:
> you are specifically restricting the distribution of binaries
> beyond what the GPL restricts. Since the combination of code
> under your license and the GPL cannot be distributed exactly
> under the terms of the GPL, it cannot, as a consequence, be
> distributed at all.
I b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
1. Code is protected by copyright? Yes
2. Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
3. Program that uses
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, 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
