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
> 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, but
> we're not sure about the exact mechanism we should use.
That's a 'work for hire'.
>
> Obviously, since it was written using their time and r
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
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, but
we're not sure about the exact mechanism we should use.
Obviously, since it was written using their time and resources, they hold
copyright on it.
11 matches
Mail list logo
