"Johann C. Rocholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney schrieb:
> > Simplify. Please don't attempt to write yet another set of license
> > terms without expert legal assistance. You've already chosen the
> > Expat license as being acceptable; use that, and you grant all the
> > rest without
Ben Finney schrieb:
> Simplify. Please don't attempt to write yet another set of license
> terms without expert legal assistance. You've already chosen the Expat
> license as being acceptable; use that, and you grant all the rest
> without even mentioning it.
Sorry for my stubborn ignorance, and t
"Johann C. Rocholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about this here construct?
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python
> # png.py - PNG encoder in pure Python
> # Copyright (C) 2006 Johann C. Rocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> #
> # This file is licensed alternatively under one of the following:
> # 1. GNU Lesser
How about this here construct?
#!/usr/bin/env python
# png.py - PNG encoder in pure Python
# Copyright (C) 2006 Johann C. Rocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#
# This file is licensed alternatively under one of the following:
# 1. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 or newer
# 2. GNU Gen
"Johann C. Rocholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, I am considering the following options:
> - LGPL
> - Modified BSD License
> - X11 License (aka MIT License)
>
> I appreciate the simplicity of the BSD and MIT Licenses, except for
> the names. "BSD License" can be confused with the orig
Johann C. Rocholl wrote:
> I appreciate the simplicity of the BSD and MIT Licenses, except for the
> names. "BSD License" can be confused with the original BSD License,
> while "MIT License" according to the FSF "is misleading, since MIT has
> used many licenses for software."
I had one lawyer tell
> > I have now decided to license my project (including the pure python PNG
> > library) under the Apache License 2.0 which is less restrictive than
> > the GPL in terms of sublicensing.
>
> But it is also incompatible with the GPL:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatib
Paul Boddie wrote:
> Johann C. Rocholl wrote:
>
>>The MIT license is enticingly short and simple, thank you for the tip.
>>
>>I have now decided to license my project (including the pure python PNG
>>library) under the Apache License 2.0 which is less restrictive than
>>the GPL in terms of sublice
Johann C. Rocholl wrote:
> The MIT license is enticingly short and simple, thank you for the tip.
>
> I have now decided to license my project (including the pure python PNG
> library) under the Apache License 2.0 which is less restrictive than
> the GPL in terms of sublicensing.
But it is also in
> Just in case anybody has the same problem, here's my first attempt at
> implementing a subset of the PNG spec in pure Python. I license it to
> you under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Update: the code is now licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
> http://trac.browsershots.org/browser/trunk/shotfac
The MIT license is enticingly short and simple, thank you for the tip.
I have now decided to license my project (including the pure python PNG
library) under the Apache License 2.0 which is less restrictive than
the GPL in terms of sublicensing. The Apache License looks modern and
well-maintained
"Johann C. Rocholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What license would you suggest?
I recommend that you choose the license that will best achieve
your long run goals for the code. As I understand them, and
as I understand your application and software development,
Alan Isaac schrieb:
> It's your code, so you get to license it.
> But if you wish to solicit patches,
> a more Pythonic license is IMHO more likely
> to prove fruitful.
What license would you suggest? After some reading at [1] and [2] and
[3], I found that the Academic Free License (version 2.1) a
> Em Sex, 2006-06-09 às 12:30 -0400, Alan Isaac escreveu:
> > It's your code, so you get to license it.
> > But if you wish to solicit patches,
> > a more Pythonic license is IMHO more likely
> > to prove fruitful.
"Felipe Almeida Lessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Em Sex, 2006-06-09 às 12:30 -0400, Alan Isaac escreveu:
> It's your code, so you get to license it.
> But if you wish to solicit patches,
> a more Pythonic license is IMHO more likely
> to prove fruitful.
"Pythonic license"? That's new to me. I can figure out what a
"Python-like license" is, but I
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:43:21 -0400, Johann C. Rocholl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here's my first attempt at
> implementing a subset of the PNG spec in pure Python. I license it to
> you under the terms of the GNU GPL.
> http://trac.browsershots.org/browser/trunk/shotfactory/lib/image/png.py
It
> You should really also include the alpha channel. Without that, PNG is
> crippled IMHO.
I have now added simple transparency (marking one color as transparent
with a tRNS chunk). If anybody wants full alpha channel support, ask
kindly or send me a patch. I would like to avoid duplicating all the
17 matches
Mail list logo
