lol
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile s
On 7/6/2012 12:25 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
> I agree, I'm certainly overly pedantic and unreasonable and silly.
>
> And you're the one using the term "intellectual property" as if that was a
> coherent concept.
>
> =)
>
I guess I don't understand that last message either. The purpose of all
of thes
I agree, I'm certainly overly pedantic and unreasonable and silly.
And you're the one using the term "intellectual property" as if that was a
coherent concept.
=)
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live even
Overly pedantic.
The thread title stopped matching the thread contents a few replies ago
- it has not discussed FreeDOS compatibility in the recent replies. It
has devolved into an open source licensing meta discussion. It is a
meta discussion by most reasonable measures, and I changed the t
~Warning~: Pedantry ahead. Only read on if you dare.
(Then again, if you read more than eight bits of my past contributions,
you probably already recognised that I'm a proud and unapologetic pedant.)
> Other licenses may be more free in that they have less restrictions,
> including the copyleft
I'm missing something here.
The big restriction that a GPL license imposes is copyleft. If you use
GPL code *AND* you distribute your work then you have to make your
source code available too. You can profit from your work and the work
of others but you can't hide your changes.
In the case
> I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom
> of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it.
Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving
the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the
GPLs). (Note
> If code is released to the public domain, anyone can use it
> without restriction.
Right.
> But there would be no license to protect us, to keep someone like
> Microsoft from copying our code, and re-releasing it as their own
> under a proprietary license.
Yeah, that's a subset of "anyone can
