Francisco Poli wrote:
>I agree on everything you said, with the following comments/questions:
>
>* why do you suggest repeating everywhere?
Ah. The reason I did that was so that it would be suitable to print out
and have the company lawyers or executives sign.
> I think it
>makes adapting the no
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:13:34 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
> does.>
> Copyright
>
> is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:13:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> It's easy as pie. You don't release it; the *company* releases it. Use
> the usual "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Program", but put the
> *company* name in
[snip]
> Put that notice in the software. Get the company to sig
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:23:40PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > John Morrissey wrote:
> > > I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
> > > authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by the
> > > company)
> > > to the pu
On Wed, 2005-02-11 at 10:55 -0500, John Morrissey wrote:
As part of my "day job," I'm working on a piece of Debian-specific software.
I would like to release it under the GPL and the company is receptive [...]
Good for them and good for you.
Obviously, since it was written using their tim
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:23:40PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> John Morrissey wrote:
>> > I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
>> > authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by the
>> > company)
>> > to the publi
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:23:40PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> John Morrissey wrote:
> > I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
> > authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by the company)
> > to the public under a DFSG compliant license.
I
John Morrissey wrote:
> I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
> authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by the company)
> to the public under a DFSG compliant license.
The easiest solution in my eyes would be that they give you one copy,
with
John Morrissey said on Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:55:27AM -0500,:
> I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that
> explicitly authorizes me to release this software (copyright still
> held by the company) to the public under a DFSG compliant license.
This is answered in th
9 matches
Mail list logo
