Something like that. Some very lax license that requires no accreditation would
be most suitable. While nobody here would post something to this list then ask
for licensing fees or probably even accreditation it would be easy to make that
very clear in a footer or something.
--
M E R Goulding
S
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> I really wish this list and our forums had a license that we agreed to.
> Something simple and non-viral so there was no fear of copy and paste from
> here.
>
> Sorry, are you suggesting that this List should have a license so that
everyt
On 28/02/2013, at 7:03 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Hopefully, yes.
>
> There may be some works governed by incompatible licenses which are not
> password-protected, so we'll want to review the licenses for any libraries we
> use to ensure they're GPL-compatible.
Nothing changes in that regar
Monte Goulding wrote:
On 28/02/2013, at 6:52 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements
>> by not being able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
>
> Richard this is not correct. It's only password protected stacks
> that won't be
On 28/02/2013, at 6:52 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> >> The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements
> >> by not being able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
> >
> > Richard this is not correct. It's only password protected stacks
> > that won't be able to be run
Monte Goulding wrote:
> On 28/02/2013, at 2:58 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>>
>> The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements
>> by not being able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
>
> Richard this is not correct. It's only password protected stacks
> that won't
On 02/27/2013 09:36 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 28/02/2013, at 2:58 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements by not being
able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
Richard this is not correct. It's only password protected stacks
On 28/02/2013, at 2:58 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements by not being
> able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
Richard this is not correct. It's only password protected stacks that won't be
able to be run on the GPL
On 02/27/2013 05:58 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Richmond wrote:
Is it alright to use closed source and/or commercial software to produce
components used in Open Source software, for instance:
1. I produce something using the Livecode Open Source variant, but use
Adobe Photoshop to produce all the
Richmond wrote:
Is it alright to use closed source and/or commercial software to produce
components used in Open Source software, for instance:
1. I produce something using the Livecode Open Source variant, but use
Adobe Photoshop to produce all the graphics.
Graphics aren't bound to the execu
Is it alright to use closed source and/or commercial software to produce
components used in Open Source software, for instance:
1. I produce something using the Livecode Open Source variant, but use
Adobe Photoshop to produce all the graphics.
2. I include a substack in my Livecode OS-authored
11 matches
Mail list logo
