Re: modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-12 Thread Jens Peter Secher
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, please, write licenses for the audience at (3). ( someone [who] is pretty neutral about software licensing and this whole "community" concept ) > > Isn't the GPL essentially a counterexample? It

Re: modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread Walter Landry
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, please, write licenses for the audience at (3). Isn't the GPL essentially a counterexample? It was written with legal counsel, and many people have criticised it for it complexity. It has also been an effective license that doesn't have any explo

Re: modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread David Turner
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 12:18, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the > > > PHPNuke thread. > > > > I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even > > su

modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the > > PHPNuke thread. > > I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even > suggestion, but my memory is imperfect) on what such a wording shou