Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net):
> On Tuesday 22 January 2019 21:31, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> > My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue,
> > I apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of
> > the list.
>
> Th
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
> nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
> > to clarify this section.
>
> Nobody will ever make such a statement
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:14 PM John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> As far as I can tell, if I create a one-line shell script that pipes a
> proprietary program (say, Windows NET PRINT, whose output is not documented
> anywhere, I've just eyeballed it) i
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
People who write highly reciprocal licenses have, in general, reserved a
> territory for people who want to link proprietary software in the form of a
> different license: for FSF this is LGPL or GPL-with-exception. If you want
> to combine your
Bruce Perens wrote:
> If you want to make a product, I will discuss with you how to resolve the
> issue for the particular problem you have, which mostly means you won't be
> creating a derivative work of any kind, but will be architecting a bright
> line between the free and proprietary pieces
Bruce Perens wrote:
> In most cases I suggest a particular architectural design for the software
> which avoids gray areas in the law like this one.
Please train me. What particular architectural design do you recommend? I want
an architecture that always permits a programmer to implement he
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:02 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> What particular architectural design do you recommend? I want an
> architecture that always permits a programmer to implement her own software
> in accordance with a published API, under any FOSS or proprietary license
> she chooses, and the
Oh, I could have so much fun with a question like that. But getting to the
one about *licenses:*
People who write highly reciprocal licenses have, in general, reserved a
territory for people who want to link proprietary software in the form of a
different license: for FSF this is LGPL or GPL-with-
Nick Weinstock proposed:
> A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way to
> clarify this section.
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier for
> you to do things they don't want you to do.
Bruce, I'm trying to p
Nobody will ever make such a statement, because it would make it easier for
you to do things they don't want you to do.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way
A clear statement about API interaction sounds like it would go a long way to
clarify this section.
Some additional considerations:
* What about internal vs external APIs, so internal APIs are “intimate” but
external APIs aren’t, similar to the Kernel’s UAPI?
* Could a library require A
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:32 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? My reading of section 6
> suggests that Corresponding Source must be conveyed under the terms of this
> License (e.g., GPLv3). Where does the lice
On Tuesday 22 January 2019 21:31, Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue, I
> apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of the
> list.
This is a BAD idea!
Many of us disable redering of html for
My e-mail isn’t adding reply bars. I’m going to put my responses in blue, I
apologize that this will likely impact readability for some members of the list.
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Intimacy in open
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I agree, it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of the intent
> of that paragraph in (A)GPLv3.
>
FSF in general does not make definitions because they wish to use the full
extent of
I agree, it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of the intent of
that paragraph in (A)GPLv3.
I've seen two very different concepts discussed in this thread.
On Sunday the 13th, Lukas discussed the idea that "intimate" communication is
in regards to distributing Corresponding Source,
16 matches
Mail list logo
