On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
> >no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't
> >remove it ...
>
> Okay, well that is what's wanted, correct? Or am I reading the mail wrong?
I've contacted the University of California "licensing director" about
upgrading
>no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't
>remove it ...
Okay, well that is what's wanted, correct? Or am I reading the mail wrong?
Rob Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:36 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
>>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
>>a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
>>they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
>
>What I was asking was,
>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
>a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
>they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
> >I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
> >a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
> >they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
>
> What I was asking wa
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 08:24 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
> >
> >Stupid question time: BSD allows forking of the code base, perhaps to
> >proprietary. If going proprietary, I would imagine you could change the
> >license. So why can't we have a "license fork"?
At 08:24 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
>
>Stupid question time: BSD allows forking of the code base, perhaps to
>proprietary. If going proprietary, I would imagine you could change the
>license. So why can't we have a "license fork"?
>
I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license
At 09:34 7/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>am investigating this right now ...
>
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
>> > Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
>> > still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
>> > develop
> Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
> still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
> developers ...
afaik we can't unilaterally alter the original license, either for dates
or for participants. However, we can send along a second licens
>I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is
>flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright
>ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF
>CALIFORNIA" ... all that is being proposed *at this time* is to add in
>coverage for the period *since*
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
> something major that makes them feel un
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
>>
>> What are you trying to d
>Recently, Landmark/Great Bridge sent us a proposed revision to our
>existing license that, from what I can tell, has two paragraphs that
>pretty instantly none of the non-US developers felt comfortable with ...
>and that I, personally, could never agree to.
Sorry to jump in , but which two para
I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is
flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright
ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... all that is
being proposed *at this time* is to add in coverage for the period *since*
'96 a
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can
> > > see something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
> >
> > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
> > something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
>
> What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I think
> this
16 matches
Mail list logo
