Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of
a "legal notice" or "author attribution" permitting the attachment of
the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause. Can you give a
concrete ex
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
1. Code is protected by copyright? Yes
2. Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
3. Program that uses
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> I think most courts do not rule on uncontested fact. This clause is
> probably intended to
> prevent EvilCorp(TM) from claiming that the work falls into that
> class. The other party
> is unlikely to contest that, claiming the work does
Don Armstrong wrote:
> you are specifically restricting the distribution of binaries
> beyond what the GPL restricts. Since the combination of code
> under your license and the GPL cannot be distributed exactly
> under the terms of the GPL, it cannot, as a consequence, be
> distributed at all.
I b
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
I had been using the GPL for some years without fully understanding
its implications. Recently, I spent some time thinking about my
ethical beliefs regarding free software and discovered that I prefer
something like Creative Commons' by-sa (attribution + share-alike)
lice
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
>> survey[3] of free software licenses):
>>
>> 4. Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
>>
>> I tried
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Suraj N. Kurapati:
>
>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> These copies and portions shall be distributed along with their
>> source code.
>
>> Is that better?
>
> Perhaps,
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license.
So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by
having the consumer
down
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:17:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > I cannot depict a specific scenario off the top of my head, but my
> > alarm bell rang as soon as I saw the word "preservation" coupled
> > with undefined (and hence vague) terms as "reasonable legal notice
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of the
license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
permissions).
*When* I choose the GNU GPL, I want to prevent my code f
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> * "must be freely redistributable under these conditions"
>
> This establishes the conditions paragraph as the base requirements
> for distribution of my code. However, I am afraid that this might
> prevent people from releasing my code under a superset license...
Ah! I
11 matches
Mail list logo
