Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:39, Andy Lester wrote:
Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
ignorant. Got it.
Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that someone here said and I
quote:
http://www.mail-ar
I am declaring this topic closed on this mailing list. It has sucked
down too much time and energy and generated too much heat and no
light. It has nothing to do with Perl QA. Please take it somewhere
else.
Please do not reply to this thread with anything but the location of
where you intend t
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:21, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > From my interpretation, what he said was "I don't care to understand
> > licenses enough so I don't want to be bothere with it." Now I think this
> > is a rather small-minded approach to this issue, which I think is very
> > bad. Perhaps, the
From my interpretation, what he said was "I don't care to understand licenses
enough so I don't want to be bothere with it." Now I think this is a rather
small-minded approach to this issue, which I think is very bad. Perhaps, the
response to Ovid about it instead of this message was not appropr
Folks should read the fascinating document which is the LEGAL file
which comes with the Ruby source code.
http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/LEGAL?rev=1.12.2.2;content-type=text%2Fplain
The Ruby source contains not one, not two, but SIXTEEN different
licences including the "Beer-War
On 7/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I DO NOT WANT TO RELICENSE YOUR CODE.
It is a huge maintenance burden.
It creates confusion for developers, who need to decide which version to
patch.
It creates confusion for users, who need to decide which version to use.
You can't reuse patch
On Friday 07 July 2006 08:56, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Shlomi, you are NOT reading or comprehending what people say here.
Please stop and think about what I write until you understand it before you
respond.
> What I wanted to say is that people should have the
> minimal knowledge to understand that M
Oh, and as a last point, before I leave well enough alone:
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 17:45]:
> I can tell you from my experience that one of my projects would
> not have become half-as-successful as it has been, if it had
> been released under the GPL instead of the Public Doma
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:39, Andy Lester wrote:
> Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
> ignorant. Got it.
>
> Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
>
That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that someone here said and I
quote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-q
Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
ignorant. Got it.
Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 17:45]:
> For the record, it is possible to be interested and
> knowledgable about law, without having a Law Diploma. This is
> similar to the fact that you can program without having a B.Sc.
> in Computer Science or whatever.
No, it’s more similar to
Hi Chris!
On Friday 07 July 2006 17:04, Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > This kind of attitude was also said by another responder to this
> > mailing list.
> > It's sort of a "small headed" (see
> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html ) "I jus
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 15:25]:
> It's sort of a "small headed" (see
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html ) "I just
> want to write code and am not interested in any legal details"
> attitude.
Oh, please. Are you really that audacious to suggest that all of
P
On Friday 07 July 2006 17:07, Pete Krawczyk wrote:
> Subject: [Slightly OT] Understanding Software Licences [was Re: Proposal
> Suggestion - Test::Run [was Re: [Israel.pm] Fwd: Call for proposals -- Perl
> Foundation Grants]] From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 7
Subject: [Slightly OT] Understanding Software Licences [was Re: Proposal
Suggestion - Test::Run [was Re: [Israel.pm] Fwd: Call for proposals -- Perl
Foundation Grants]]
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:13:58 +0300
}Well, I'm not a lawyer, either, but I s
On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This kind of attitude was also said by another responder to this
mailing list.
It's sort of a "small headed" (see
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html ) "I just want
to write
code and am not interested in any legal details" attit
- Original Message
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To battle such ignorance and give people (especially those with some
> non-negligible authority) a quick-and-dirty intro to such issues, I've set up
> the following wiki page:
>
> http://perl.net.au/wiki/Legal_Resources_for_H
Hi Ovid!
On Friday 07 July 2006 12:30, Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Not exactly. I suggested that if anyone is interested in working on
> > Test::Run, he can file a proposal for a grant saying he'd like to work on
> > it with me as a mento
18 matches
Mail list logo
