On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:45:20PM +0100, Harry Percival wrote:
>apologies for resurrecting a dead thread, but i came across this license
>and was impressed:
>
>http://unlicense.org/
It seems to me that it's similar to the MIT License except without the
benefit of having been written
If you want to relinquish copyright claims and push work into the public
domain, code or otherwise, CC0 is a much more rigorous means to do so. See
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ for detail. Intent is very similar to
unlicense.
cheers
Ben
On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Doug Winter wrot
You can't just put stuff in the public domain unfortunately, it's
all a very grey area.
Also this is very poorly drafted.
If you put this statement in a file called UNLICENSE alongside
your code then it would be pretty much meaningless in mo
I approve of the sentiment, but it seems to me that the unlicense is
most definitely a LICENSE. Putting legal terms and conditions, or waiver
of same, into a differently named file, seems a step too far.
Nevertheless, sounds cool to me, I'll read up and consider using it. Thanks!
On 06/10/13
apologies for resurrecting a dead thread, but i came across this license
and was impressed:
http://unlicense.org/
On 12 September 2013 20:08, John Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> [...]
>
> I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run
>>>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
[...]
I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run
along with all the other tests). Slightly nicer than a push hook IMO
because you see it earlier and because it works the same way as all your
other automated tests of your
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:55:39PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> Not always. As I understand it, if there is a copyright violation that
> the copyright owner fails to act against, it can lead to the material
> being deemed to be in the public domain. But IANAL.
I'm pretty sure that is not true. As
On 10 September 2013 22:49, Russel Winder wrote:
> You are correct that the author of any literary work has moral rights in
> that work. The copyright always rests with the original author unless
> explicitly assigned. However in the cases I have been involved with,
> barristers have chosen not t
On 10/09/13 20:07, John Lee wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Andy Robinson wrote:
On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:
The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since
in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work.
Russel, thanks. That's interesting.
On 10/09/13 22:55, Russel Winder wrote:
You mean, was this computer program code written over 70 years ago or
by somebody who died over 70 years ago? It doesn't seem very likely.
Not always. As I understand it, if there is a copyright violation that
the copyright owner fails to act against, it ca
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:18 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:53:26PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Sadly, although it would be nice to have a file that says it applies to
> > all files and so be very DRY, this will not work in UK and USA law,
> > possibly also other jurisdic
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:14 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[…]
> Only, I think, because lawyers tend to err on the side of what they
> perceive as caution rather than having any confidence that their
> advice is actually correct.
Indeed. Most are usually interested in winning, and making money, not in
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Andy Robinson wrote:
On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:
The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since
in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work.
Russel, thanks. That's interesting.
The practical issue is "how not to f
On 10/09/13 13:33, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
Thanks Doug.
I'd be interested if you wanted to expand on why you like that
license. Is it anything other than what I could glean from a layman's
reading of the text?
It's basically the 3-clause MIT license, but legally much more
watertight and (im
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:03:06PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> Whilst you are correct that this has been agreed by case law for books
> and magazines (the so called moral rights), as far as I am aware there
> has been no case in the UK that has provided case law for this. Legal
> advice is always
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:53:26PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> Sadly, although it would be nice to have a file that says it applies to
> all files and so be very DRY, this will not work in UK and USA law,
> possibly also other jurisdictions.
Do you have a reference for this? As far as I am aware
Thanks Doug.
I'd be interested if you wanted to expand on why you like that license.
Is it anything other than what I could glean from a layman's reading of
the text?
That Apache license page is puzzling to me, no doubt due to my
inexperience in such matters.
Why does the boilerplate attac
Pedro
-
http://pedrokroger.net
http://musicforgeeksandnerds.com
On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Andy Robinson wrote:
> On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:
>> The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since
>> in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separa
On 09/09/13 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:
Sadly, although it would be nice to have a file that says it applies
to all files and so be very DRY, this will not work in UK and USA law,
possibly also other jurisdictions. The licence statement has to be in
each and every individual file since in UK an
On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:
> The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since
> in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work.
>
Russel, thanks. That's interesting.
The practical issue is "how not to forget over time". A test in a
test suite,
You are cunning. Or maybe configure my editor to auto hide (fold?) such gubbins?
But sadly I don't think I can justify the time to ingulge in such appealing
trickery. A ten second Awk invocation it will be, followed by 'make release'.
Jonathan Hartley
http://tartley.com
Daniel Pope wrote:
>Ma
Maybe you could omit license headers in your repo, but add them when
building the sdist?
On 9 September 2013 20:57, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> Thanks for all the input, people.
>
> FWIW, The folks downstream said their motivation was the continual
> difficulty of automatically checking for accep
Thanks for all the input, people.
FWIW, The folks downstream said their motivation was the continual difficulty
of automatically checking for acceptable licenses on the many bits of
(allegedly) FOSS they use. They have 4k of filenames that the license checker
can't currently account for, and re
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:14 +0100, Daniel Pope wrote:
> You don't have to include a notice of copyright to enjoy copyright
> protection (under the Berne Convention). Nothing is assumed to be public
> domain unless it is explicitly disclaimed as such.
>
> Since licence terms are based on copyright
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:13 +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source
> available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license,
> so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such
> people. Am I
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 14:18 +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in Chromium,
> because I've had a bug report from them that my source files (plural)
> fail their build-time license checker.
>
> They'd like me to include a license and copyr
Yes you are right, however quoting the adage; explicit is better then
implicit :-)
To be honest, I find it rather strange that someone who likes to use your
code is dictating you what to do, me being a contractor would reply with:
Sure I'll do that for you, that is then X£ please, if you are not ha
You don't have to include a notice of copyright to enjoy copyright
protection (under the Berne Convention). Nothing is assumed to be public
domain unless it is explicitly disclaimed as such.
Since licence terms are based on copyright I don't think you need to state
it everywhere. If someone fails
Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source
available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license,
so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such
people. Am I wrong?
Jonathan
On 09/09/13 14:30, Martin P. Hellwig wrote
On 9 Sep 2013, at 14:42, Harry Percival wrote:
> Not in dunderinits though, surely?
Well, if you don't then surely someone might copy your blank file and pass it
off as their own and rob you of your IP revenue ;)
-Matt
--
Matt Hamilton, Technical Director
Netsight Internet Solutions Limited
The (il-)logic of trying to apply copyright statements to an otherwise
empty file should be weighed against the effort of writing a syntax checker
that can ignore such files.
Generally, it's easier to script these things, so having a script that
blindly adds the copyright header to all python file
It is normal practice to include a brief license statement in every
source file, to make it clear what precisely is under the terms of that
license.
Cheers,
Doug.
On 09/09/13 14:18, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in
Chromium, because I'v
I <3 Colorama.
Copyright is quite dull.
Colors in terminal programs are awesome.
On 9 September 2013 14:42, Harry Percival wrote:
> Not in dunderinits though, surely?
>
>
> On 9 September 2013 14:30, Gilberto Gonçalves wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to p
Not in dunderinits though, surely?
On 9 September 2013 14:30, Gilberto Gonçalves wrote:
> I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to put the
> license in all the source files but I believe
> that putting at least a header in each of the files as well as a full
> License file in
I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to put the license
in all the source files but I believe
that putting at least a header in each of the files as well as a full
License file in the root of your project is the
best way to do it.
Check this:
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resource
I concur, you do not have to put the full license text in it, a reference
to it is fine.
The logic behind that request is that some files may be seen out of context
of the project (as there is no reference), without having a license
attached the file can be legally misrepresented as being public do
On 9 September 2013 14:18, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source file
> (including empty __init__.py files).
I have had this with big companies before, long ago. It may actually
be sufficient to have one line saying something like...
"C
A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in Chromium,
because I've had a bug report from them that my source files (plural)
fail their build-time license checker.
They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source
file (including empty __init__.py files).
38 matches
Mail list logo
