On 01/11/16 21:30, Wols Lists wrote:
> (Incidentally, if I understand my UK law correctly,
Amateur legal speculation is not appreciated on TDF mailing lists.
Please don't do that.
If you have a real legal concern, please call me - while IANAL, for
better or worse, I'm the TDF boa
On 01/11/16 19:37, Michael Stahl wrote:
> may i suggest you actually *read* the clauses of the MPLv2 that Michael
> has pointed out as being particularly helpful, and then think about what
> risks accepting code contributions under other licenses lacking such
> clauses would expose TDF and downstre
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
>>
> Because giving orders to volunteers isn't actually a very good idea?
there was no 'order' given.
what was said is:
"Please be aware this license cannot be used for development activities."
which is a factual statement regarding the current ru
On 01.11.2016 20:14, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
>> right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
>> non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful
On 01/11/16 19:19, Jan Iversen wrote:
>
>>
>> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
>> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
>
> Just a fast input, during the last year where I have been keeping an eye on
> licenses, we have not had a single real problem.
>
>
> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
Just a fast input, during the last year where I have been keeping an eye on
licenses, we have not had a single real problem.
We have had a couple of people needing clarificat
On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
> So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
> right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
> non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.
Piling in really late, I know, but forci
Hi Dennis,
On 10/11/2016 11:57 AM, Dennis Roczek wrote:
> why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
> Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!
Technically =) but let me link to the MPLv2 quickly to see some of what
we'd miss in
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Jan,
>
> why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
> Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!
>
> It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our
> license and it totally valid.
Not ag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Jan,
why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!
It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our
license and it totally
Hi
Thanks for your license statement. Please be aware this license cannot be used
for development activities. Our project consist of many other activities where
this license is good.
rgds
jan I.
> On 11 Oct 2016, at 11:30, Björn Balazs wrote:
>
> To the extent possible under law, I waive all
To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related or
neighboring rights to my past & future contributions to LibreOffice:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
Cheers,
Björn
---
Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs
Business Management & Research
User Prompt GmbH | Psycholog
12 matches
Mail list logo
