> If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this:
>
> (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine
> this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a
> 'sounds good' from at least one common-law and at least one civil-law
> l
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 10:41:50PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this:
>
> (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine
> this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a
> 'sounds
If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this:
(Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine
this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a
'sounds good' from at least one common-law and at least one civil-law
lawyer.)
-
Consider to put into the license an "international private law clause" on the
type "the law apliable to this obligations (the license) is the one of (and
you indicate the nation which legal system has the structure of public domain
you prefer).
I don't like this, 'couse is a way to impose ot
Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>* It is an enumerate style license, which means that
>>> - you might forget something
>>> - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying
>>>you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is.
>>> - it is based upon US copyr
> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>
> You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license
> used on th
Harald Geyer wrote:
>Joachim Breitner wrote:
>>Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
>>>to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
>>
>>I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
>>says the same stuff as you
If we need to discuss MIT-License in length, there probably should be
a new thread about this. However I'm still looking forward to recieve
answers to my initial question.
> > It says you have to include the permission notice in any "substantial
> > portions of the Software" no matter if source or
Harald Geyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
>> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
>> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>>
>> You can take MIT-licensed software an
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
If you are right then I need to reword the license such that the user
can choose which jurisdictions concept of public domain he likes to
use. Would that still be a valid license?
I have to fold on that one; I'm not an experience d-legal'er. But I hope
someone else can a
Harald Geyer wrote:
there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* It is an enumerate style license, which means that
- you might forget something
- it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying
you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what
Hi!
> > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told,
> > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about
> > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the
> > same rights *as* public domain.
> Has been proposed, but since P
> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>
> You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing
> source,
[I think we may be saying the same thing here, but I thought some
clarification was necessary.]
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and
> sell it.
You can if the license allows it.
> if a work is in the public domain, nobod
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any
objections against my draft.
However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in
whatever "substantial portions of the Software"
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:27AM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote:
> [ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Please set your Mail-Followup-To mail header.
> * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
>
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Hi!
Thanks, for your response:
> > Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
> > to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
>
> I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
> says the s
Hi Harald,
Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org,
and is well known
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Hi!
I wonder if the following is a valid license, if it is found in a
tarball in some file LICENSE? Is it necessary to refer to this file
from every other file or is it's existance enough?
| You may deal with the stuff in this package in any way you want, the
|
19 matches
Mail list logo
