And I'm yet to study unlicense but from the first
look it appears to be the sort of legal mutant I
doubt would get internal legal clearance.
On the other hand, some bigger commercial product
do use SQLite, but they do offer licenses too.
Sticking to the MIT License is more prudent for the
tim
Dnia 15 maja 2014 17:44 Charlie Murphy napisał(a):
> In the United States, if you say "my code has no license" it will be
> the same as if you said "I reserve all rights to my code".
Exactly, most countries are signatories to Berne Convention.
Dnia 25 maja 2014 16:06 Aaron Burrow napisał(a):
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Jakub Lach wrote:
> > Dnia 23 maja 2014 23:18 Anders Andersson napisał(a):
> >
> >> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Nick wrote:
> >> > The ISC license[0] is simpler still, and in much nicer English,
> >> > w
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Jakub Lach wrote:
> Dnia 23 maja 2014 23:18 Anders Andersson napisał(a):
>
>> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Nick wrote:
>> > The ISC license[0] is simpler still, and in much nicer English,
>> > which I like. But MIT/X is perfectly fine too for our purposes h
Dnia 23 maja 2014 23:18 Anders Andersson napisał(a):
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Nick wrote:
> > The ISC license[0] is simpler still, and in much nicer English,
> > which I like. But MIT/X is perfectly fine too for our purposes here.
> >
> > 0. http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
>
> Is
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Nick wrote:
> The ISC license[0] is simpler still, and in much nicer English,
> which I like. But MIT/X is perfectly fine too for our purposes here.
>
> 0. http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
Is something more true in legalese if it's written in ALL CAPS?
Quoth Anselm R Garbe:
> Exactly. suckless.org uses MIT/X for most projects just because it is
> the simplest wide-spread FLOSS license everybody can understand.
The ISC license[0] is simpler still, and in much nicer English,
which I like. But MIT/X is perfectly fine too for our purposes here.
0
Hi there,
On 12 May 2014 17:44, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:20:26AM -0300, Amadeus Folego wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I just noticed most of suckless projects use the MIT License, and I just
>> wondered if there was any place on the suckless wiki that stated why
>> this
On 05/12, Amadeus Folego wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License
> choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
>
Most of the ideas have already been touched on here, but if you want to get a
general idea of why some people might reject
Lee Fallat wrote:
> I've come to adopt the NoLicenseLicense, for sole reason of
> demonstrating to people that many of us code for the sake of fun.
>
> NoLicenseLicense.txt
> There is no license attached to this software, enjoy.
>
> ...Yes this is a joke. If you are interested in these types of
>
> So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License
> choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
Personnally, I have many reasons to avoid licenses which are not
GNU GPL.
I want optimal code to stay open. I mean at least to have a legal
leverage. I want open code insta
On 13.05.2014 19:19, Nick wrote:
Peaceful Open Source License
1) It's incompatible with most free software licenses. [0]
2) Copyright law is the wrong place to do this; it covers
distribution - if I take your mail client, load it onto a missile,
and fire the missile, I'm not redistributing you
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:46:02PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Example: LibreCAD, a fork of QCad, which had been relicensed by the
> authoring company under the GPLv2. LibreCAD wanted to support AutoCAD's
> DWG file format. Unluckily for them, LibreDWG (a FSF project) is licensed
> GPLv3+, a
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:28:48PM -0400, Lee Fallat wrote:
[GPL quoted in full]
Could you please take the time to shorten your quotes to the part you
actually want to reply to?
> I've come to adopt the NoLicenseLicense, for sole reason of
> demonstrating to people that many of us code for the sa
Quoth prototype:
> I also thought about this problem some time ago and asked google
> about a open source license which restricts harmful use - and this
> is what i got:
> the "Peaceful Open Source License" [1]:
>
> Clause 1 and 2 come from the BSD 2-Clause license.
> Clause 3 is meant to
Greetings,
On 12.05.2014 18:18, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> For example the US navy is using Open Source software to
> kill people. I can’t really support this.
I also thought about this problem some time ago and asked google about a
open source license which restricts harmful use - and this is
Hi,
* Anthony J. Bentley 2014-05-13 04:31
> Summaries and general concepts are pointless because they are not what is
> legally in effect. The only sensible license is one that is so simple that
> it needs no summary.
No. Every license, even two lines long, (and even the lack of a license)
puts t
Greetings.
On Tue, 13 May 2014 06:43:41 +0200 "Anthony J. Bentley"
wrote:
> Nick writes:
> > Quoth Anthony J. Bentley:
> > > Nick writes:
> > > > GPL is nearly as conceptually simple as permissive licenses, I
> > > > think.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Clearly, the GPL is just as simple to unde
Nick writes:
> Quoth Anthony J. Bentley:
> > Nick writes:
> > > GPL is nearly as conceptually simple as permissive licenses, I
> > > think.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Clearly, the GPL is just as simple to understand and explain to others
> > as a permissive license. After all, copyright law is complex.
Quoth Anthony J. Bentley:
> Nick writes:
> > GPL is nearly as conceptually simple as permissive licenses, I
> > think.
>
> ...
>
> Clearly, the GPL is just as simple to understand and explain to others
> as a permissive license. After all, copyright law is complex.
I don't think you read what I
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Nick writes:
>> Quoth Dimitris Papastamos:
>> > It is simple to understand. MIT/X does not require a Ph.D in Law.
>>
>> That's not entirely true, really. MIT/X may be very short itself,
>> but it is part of a legal system that is inhera
Nick writes:
> Quoth Dimitris Papastamos:
> > It is simple to understand. MIT/X does not require a Ph.D in Law.
>
> That's not entirely true, really. MIT/X may be very short itself,
> but it is part of a legal system that is inherantly complex, and
> claiming that if you can understand the few
Quoth Dimitris Papastamos:
> It is simple to understand. MIT/X does not require a Ph.D in Law.
That's not entirely true, really. MIT/X may be very short itself,
but it is part of a legal system that is inherantly complex, and
claiming that if you can understand the few sentences of the license
Christoph Lohmann writes:
> Greetings.
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 22:02:57 +0200 "Anthony J. Bentley" w
> rote:
> > Christoph Lohmann writes:
> > > On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:18:37 +0200 FRIGN wrote:
> > > > Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software
> > > > license, which me
Greetings.
On Mon, 12 May 2014 22:02:57 +0200 "Anthony J. Bentley"
wrote:
> Christoph Lohmann writes:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:18:37 +0200 FRIGN wrote:
> > > Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software
> > > license, which means that it doesn't permit incorporating o
Christoph Lohmann writes:
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:18:37 +0200 FRIGN wrote:
> > Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software
> > license, which means that it doesn't permit incorporating or even
> > linking a GPL-software without publishing the software itself under a
> >
Amadeus Folego writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I just noticed most of suckless projects use the MIT License, and I just
> wondered if there was any place on the suckless wiki that stated why
> this was preferred, but found none.
>
> So I thought that maybe this was something largely discussed already and
Hi Lohmann,
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> History made me thinking about that stance in suckless. Yes, it’s com‐
> plete freedom, but the GPL made it possible to open up platforms not
> open before. For example the US navy is using Open Source softwa
Greetings.
On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:18:37 +0200 FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:20:26 -0300
> Amadeus Folego wrote:
>
> Hey Amadeus,
>
> I love your music!
>
> > So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License
> > choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
>
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:20:26AM -0300, Amadeus Folego wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I just noticed most of suckless projects use the MIT License, and I just
> wondered if there was any place on the suckless wiki that stated why
> this was preferred, but found none.
>
> So I thought that maybe this wa
On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:20:26 -0300
Amadeus Folego wrote:
Hey Amadeus,
I love your music!
> So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License
> choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software
license, w
Hi there,
I just noticed most of suckless projects use the MIT License, and I just
wondered if there was any place on the suckless wiki that stated why
this was preferred, but found none.
So I thought that maybe this was something largely discussed already and
searched on the mailing list archive
32 matches
Mail list logo
