On Wednesday 02 of March 2011 11:30:03 Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 22:37, Joseph Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing: > > > > http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially > > I really like the particular answer pointing to bugroff licence: > http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
If I was a touchy fellow I'd feel offended by it, but being a well mannered and weathered guy, I'll just let the bugger pass me by :P Also it shows the author doesn't know much about how laws are made and what's the point of them. That being said, I do think that much of the legal, economic and social system (incl. copyright, patents) needs to change quite a bit. But that'd be off topic now. *On topic* I'd also _very_ much like to see what's up with ConTeXt licensing. From what it seems it looks like TeX Live is relicensing ConTeXt in its distribution. And both helping the Gentoo Licensing team and being Deputy Legal Coordinator of the FSFE, that's something that is my concern. cheers, Matija -- gsm: +386 41 849 552 www: http://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suk...@gabbler.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
