Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:32:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>True. The question becomes: is it too onerous?
>>
>>After all, people have said the GPL is onerous. Consider the reference
>>card scenario. Either you distribute source at the same time (which is
>>extreme
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>And obtaining GNU Emacs does not entitle you to run it on a gnu.org
>>machine. Why should this be any different? You have control over your
>>own boxes and what runs on them. I have the same control over mine. If
>>you
latter half of the th century BC and is also believed to have journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer I think I so long as your own pains drive you so long as pain underlies
Thales is said to have performed the really notable feat of in the beach Then the man on the
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Can it be described as "the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change
> to choice of law" instead, please?
Upstream has accepted this smallish modification into the upcoming new
licence.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On 13-8-2004 06:33, "Josh Triplett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What annoys me propably most is that this simple licence is non-GPL
>> compatible, and any software written with this licence is not allowed to be
>> linked against GPL-software:
>>This code may be freely modified, copied and di
On 2004-08-13 10:58:58 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me, I did not make a distinction between "open source" and "free"
software. All I wanted is contribute whatever I do back to the
community.
There are other differences about how they've worked out too. I
summarise so
A bit off-topic reply.
On 13-8-2004 13:18, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded to my mail:
>> Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
>> scientist.
>
> Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
> "scientific ethics" and "science and society" topics as w
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you said, that's not a criteria Debian can use; you need to quantify
> exactly what fails your "I'd cease using and/or modifying a work"
> critera. If anything that requires you to provide source for the server
> software you use to those who interac
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>My point is, you are asking for too much control over how the other
>>>party uses their hardware. You should certainly have the right to use
>>>it on your own hardware; that would be more freedom than you have now,
>>>and certainly enough to consider i
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
> work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
> copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
> you have anything like that clear line for use.
At
* Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040812 19:36]:
> I can think of many cases where the source is larger or more onerous to
> distribute than the binary. Consider the case where the binary is in an
> embedded system. Also consider the case when the "binary" is a printed
> book, or a reference ca
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
>> work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
>> copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
>> y
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
> rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
> program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
> oratory, dance, puppetry, or music itself has creative expre
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
There's a fair cost involved in just keeping the
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
>> rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
>> program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
>> oratory, d
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
Not really, since it's my time that I'm concerne
16 matches
Mail list logo
