1. You seem to ignore the fact that volunteer teachers exist.
2. I aspire to not repeat history. Esp. history that I don't completely
agree with...
The description I supplied for the license I had in mind was not ready
for your scrutiny, but as somebody else said licensing is less trivial
than we
On Thursday 02 June 2005 01:42 am, poisondart wrote:
> If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
> software licenses,
Yep. We've all been there at some time, though. ;-)
> but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
> isolated case and I wanted to know if th
max wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially
>>>tries to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives
>>>rights not to the cr
max wrote:
> Perhaps 'attempts' is too strong a word. Maybe 'ends up giving' would
> help my argument more. The best example I can come up with at the
> moment is programmer A releases a project under the gpl. Programmer B
> makes a substantial contribution to the project, which pA reads
> thr
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:08:36PM -, max wrote:
> I guess my argument is that with multiple contributors, the gpl, in
> comparison to say, a BSD style license, grants power to the code. If 3
> people work on a gpl project, they must agree to any changes. If 3
> people work on a BSD style pr
max:
>> For me, the fact
>> that corporations are considered people by the law is ridiculous.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Ridiculous? I don't think so. Take, for example, Acme Inc. Acme purchases
> a new factory. Who owns the factory? The CEO? The Chairperson of the Board
> of Directors? Split in e
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
>
>> This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially
>> tries to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives
>> rights not to the creator of some code, but
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:49:28PM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> Well, the FSF at least thinks that internal use within an organization
> does not constitute distribution.
Well, the problem are contractors. It's very important (for example in
Germany) for a number of legal reasons that contractors a
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
> This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially tries
> to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives rights not to
> the creator of some code, but to the code itself.
Can you please show me where in the GPL it gives righ
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> By law, corporations (and possibly some other organisations)
> *are* people. Not natural people like you or I, but nevertheless
> people. For good or bad, this is the legal fact (or perhaps
> "legal fiction") in most countries
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:57:29 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Robert Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Mike Meyer wrote:
>>> I've heard people argue otherwise on this case. In particular, if you
>>> allow an employee to use your GPL'ed-but-not-distributed software
"Robert Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> I've heard people argue otherwise on this case. In particular, if you
>> allow an employee to use your GPL'ed-but-not-distributed software,
>> they are the end user, and have all the rights granted by
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>But this would only be a restriction if the code were to be
>>redistributed, of course. It's stil perfectly legal to use it
>>internaly without making the modified source available.
>
> I've heard people argue otherwise on this case
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this would only be a restriction if the code were to be
> redistributed, of course. It's stil perfectly legal to use it
> internaly without making the modified source available.
I've heard people argue otherwise on this case. In particular, if you
all
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:57:25AM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>>And for thoroughness, allow me to add "even if they have no intention or
>>desire to profit monetarily." I can't explain exactly why this is the
>>case, but it seems to be true in the overwhelming majority
Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 17:52 + schrieb Karl A. Krueger:
> Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *) GPL is not acceptable for "library" stuff, because as a software
> > developer I'm sometimes forced to do "closed" stuff.
> > (Yep, even nowadays there are place where it's b
Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *) GPL is not acceptable for "library" stuff, because as a software
> developer I'm sometimes forced to do "closed" stuff.
> (Yep, even nowadays there are place where it's basically a legal
>requirement.)
I'm curious about this last one.
The G
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:57:25AM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> And for thoroughness, allow me to add "even if they have no intention or
> desire to profit monetarily." I can't explain exactly why this is the
> case, but it seems to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.
> Academic projec
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Yes, what I ask may seem ridiculous, but I don't view it that way.
>>Instead, I find that it is the implication of using a restrictive
>>license such as I described to be ridiculous: if there is no monetary
>>gain option in the license
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
> software licenses, but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
> isolated case and I wanted to know if there were others who wanted the
> same thing as me.
You're going thro
If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
software licenses, but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
isolated case and I wanted to know if there were others who wanted the
same thing as me.
I'm curious to know what the money that open source or GPL'd proje
On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:52 pm, poisondart wrote:
> With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
> utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
> see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
> software for free--in all the cas
poisondart wrote:
[John J. Lee:]
>>Secondly, do you think it's a bad thing for anybody to sell software
>>that makes use of the *concepts* in your code (provided that the use
>>of those concepts is not restricted by financial or other legal
>>means)? If so, why?
>>
>>John
>
> To be honest. I'm n
> I'm a little curious about your position.
>
> Though code encodes knowledge (hence the word, of course :-), the
> system of concepts embodied in your code is not the same thing as the
> code itself. Right?
>
> So, firstly, I don't follow your argument there: how does it follow
> from the fact th
poisondart wrote:
> With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
> utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
> see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
> software for free.
I don't think he's trying to make you recons
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I plan to release my programs for academic and pedagogical purposes.
> The knowledge contained in these programs is the same knowledge that
> people use to speak a language--did you buy a copy of the English
> language when you decided to learn it?
>
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Ultimately I desire two things from the license (but not limited to):
> - being able to distribute it freely, anybody can modify it
> - nobody is allowed to make profit from my code (other than myself)
[...]
If you believe it's feasible to get contr
With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
software for free--in all the cases you've described, the answer should
be no.
You publish
Thanks for the replies. They have been very helpful. I'll have to read
through the licenses you've listed in more detail, but the creative
commons license of which James William Pye mentions seems to be what
I'll be using.
The reason why I need people to review my code and also the ideas
behind th
poisondart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if this is the right group to post this. If not, then I
> would appreciate if somebody could point me to the correct group.
>
> This is my first time releasing software to the public and I'm wanting
> to release a Python program I wrote for review (and cri
poisondart wrote:
> Ultimately I desire two things from the license (but not limited to):
> - being able to distribute it freely, anybody can modify it
> - nobody is allowed to make profit from my code (other than myself)
GPL does something like this, except it doesn't forbid anyone to sell
the
On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:50:14 -0700, poisondart wrote:
> - being able to distribute it freely, anybody can modify it
> - nobody is allowed to make profit from my code (other than myself)
Terry mentioned OS.org, so I will not repeat that. (opensource.org)
Also, check out http://creativecommons.org.
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> testing on other platforms, but also I would like to explore the
> different software licenses that are available (there seems to be
There is an Open Software Foundation (or something close) with a site
listing and linki
33 matches
Mail list logo
