On 11/29/2013 05:12 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
> On 11/28/2013 5:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> There's no meaningful legal distinction between static and dynamic
>> linking. And pre
On 11/29/2013 5:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> you seem to be flailing around, hoping that maybe
> there will be some loophole that means the law will work out to be the
> way you want?
Absolutely not. For one thing, I do not "want" one outcome
or another. I just want the project to flourish.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
>
> On 11/28/2013 5:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> There's no meaningful legal distinction between static and dynamic
>> link
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
On 11/28/2013 5:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> There's no meaningful legal distinction between static and dynamic
> linking. And pretty much everyone agrees that if you do either, f
Minor but important point: if switching to GPL please make it GPLv2+ (I.e.,
use the "or any later version as published by..." language), not just
GPLv2. This allows compatibility with GPLv3 code...
On 29 Nov 2013 13:44, "Laurent Gautier" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to all for the participation, opin
Hi,
Thanks to all for the participation, opinions, and recommendations.
While there are diverging opinions about what the license should/could
be, the consensus appears to be that the AGPL is not the most
appropriate. I am taking note and I'll work on having it taken off the
next rpy2 release
