ld ethical freedoms, so we're sitting 90 degrees between
the two extremes ;-)
Open Source License
Version 0.1, June 2007
Copyright (C) Joshua David Williams 2007. Everyone is permitted to distribute
this document, but modification is strictly prohibited.
Preamble
In contrast to the GNU
On 6/18/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably don't want do design a license without involving a
> competent lawyer. We don't expect lawyers to write kernel code, either.
True enough, and I realized this when I wrote my initial post, but it's not
what I wrote so much as t
On 6/18/07, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, writing yet another license for the linux kernel is
> therefore NOT the solution - if you get my drift.
The new license could be written to be compatible with both versions of the
GPL. IMO, a new license written from the OSS perspective
On 6/17/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
> The "legal terms" is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
> license *is*, for crying out loud!
> If you don't care about the legal side, go and read the free software
> man
4 matches
Mail list logo
