Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. You have the right to copy, modify, and/or distribute the work.
I don't know what and/or means, but I find it hard to imagine a
definition of and/or which would make this sentence mean that I have
clear
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cf. the pine/UW attack which interpreted right to modify and
distribute as: You have the right to modify. You have the right to
distribute. You *don't* have the right to do both at once.
So, you're saying that and on its own doesn't allow
On 2003-11-26, Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, maybe that is up to the courts to decide. It doesn't look like a
copyleft to me, but that's just my first impression. I'm used to this
definition from the FSF site:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But even then, you're going to have two problems: consider, for example,
the BSD Preservation License
Can you point me to an URL with the license text? I didn't find it
with Google.
Shoot, I was
emacswiki.org uses the FDL at the moment; I'd like to move away from
the FDL to a very simple license I can understand in two minutes, and
I want to allow people to upgrade to the FDL, the GPL, the Creative
Commons ShareAlike (CC SA) license, the XEmacs manual license, or any
other copyleft
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
I'm looking for some advice concerning the wording of the following
license. The goal is to keep this license as short as possible while
still making it a copyleft license upgradable to any of the other
licenses.
1. You
Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
emacswiki.org uses the FDL at the moment; I'd like to move away from
the FDL to a very simple license I can understand in two minutes, and
I want to allow people to upgrade to the FDL, the GPL, the Creative
Commons ShareAlike (CC SA) license, the
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
4. When you distribute the work, you must provide the recipients
access to the preferred form for making copies and
modifications, for no more than your costs of doing so.
It is worth noting that this clause is
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should spell these licenses out in full, such as the GNU General
Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation. You
should include the as published by clause so that nobody unscrupulous
decides to publish a GPL that is really a
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 01:30:46AM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
Why do you think it is not appropriate for a legal document? I have
heard a friend with a law PhD here in Switzerland say that a broad and
fuzzy text is just as appropriate for legal texts, because then the
court will examine the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't think you want to say You can change the license -- perhaps
you want to say You may also choose to receive this under the terms
of any other copyleft license, such as the GNU GPL, CreativeCommons
ShareAlike, or XEmacs Manual License.
11 matches
Mail list logo
