Re: [dev] picture
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:30:16AM +0200, Kai Heide wrote: 2010/6/20 Martin Kopta mar...@kopta.eu: http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png src? http://bender.eugenics-research.org/picture-src pgpgvC3FM8aaK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] picture
http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png src? ITT
Re: [dev] picture
2010/6/20 Martin Kopta mar...@kopta.eu: http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png src? -- MfG Kai Heide Es reitet der Heidereiter durch die Heide weiter
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, CC0[2] for art if you want to place your work into public domain and allow anyone do to anything with it. [1] http://unlicense.org/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Re: [dev] picture
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous ake7z...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the public domain. uriel CC0[2] for art if you want to place your work into public domain and allow anyone do to anything with it. [1] http://unlicense.org/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Re: [dev] picture
On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel ur...@berlinblue.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous ake7z...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the public domain. I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past: Copy me if you can Cheers, Anselm
Re: [dev] picture
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 05:53:30PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel ur...@berlinblue.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous ake7z...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the public domain. I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past: Copy me if you can I liked that one two. But it was tongue-in-cheek rather than practical. It means nothing legally. I tend to stick to BEER-WARE where possible. -- Kris Maglione If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Re: [dev] picture
Hi list, Anselm R Garbe wrote: On 21 June 2010 17:27, Urielur...@berlinblue.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymousake7z...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the public domain. I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past: Copy me if you can it is not a license. I am pretending that everyone's considering my work public domain. It is a post-license. Because of a lawyer, who analyzed this[0], regarding Geomyidae, I changed all maybe useful code to MIT/X. MIT/X is the best balance between Keep respect to me. and Kim- Jong Uriel, yes, build your physical package with it.. Sincerely, Christoph [0] http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/09/29/geomyidae-publiek-domein-behalve-als-u-niet-netjes-handelt/
Re: [dev] picture
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Christoph Lohmann 2...@r-36.net wrote: Hi list, Anselm R Garbe wrote: On 21 June 2010 17:27, Urielur...@berlinblue.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymousake7z...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the public domain. I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past: Copy me if you can it is not a license. I am pretending that everyone's considering my work public domain. It is a post-license. Because of a lawyer, who analyzed this[0], regarding Geomyidae, I changed all maybe useful code to MIT/X. MIT/X is the best balance between Keep respect to me. and Kim- Jong Uriel, yes, build your physical package with it.. Hahaha, this made my day, added it to the cat-v fortunes file: http://fortunes.cat-v.org/cat-v/ uriel Sincerely, Christoph [0] http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/09/29/geomyidae-publiek-domein-behalve-als-u-niet-netjes-handelt/
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 04:25:36PM +0200, Martin Kopta wrote: http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png I can't help but notice that that conjures two, erm... not unrelated images. -- Kris Maglione “Did God have a mother?” Children, when told that God made the heavens and the earth, innocently ask whether God had a mother. This deceptively simple question has stumped the elders of the church and embarrassed the finest theologians, precipitating some of the thorniest theological debates over the centuries. All the great religions have elaborate mythologies surrounding the divine act of Creation, but none of them adequately confronts the logical paradoxes inherent in the question that even children ask. --Michio Kaku
Re: [dev] picture
On 20 Jun 2010, at 15:25, Martin Kopta wrote: http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png Once I started thinking of those things as alien jellyfish I started to like it. I'm not saying what my first thought was. ó.o
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:26:44 +0200 Martin Kopta mar...@kopta.eu wrote: May I post this to another list? I think it's great ;) Yes, of course. I can send you vectors if you want to. Yes, please.
Re: [dev] picture
Thank god suckless.org got to have a meaning.
Re: [dev] picture
Next time do your homework properly then. On 6/20/10, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma alexander.su...@googlemail.com wrote: WTFPL Lol, did not know that one! That's even better. -- Alexander cussing-makes-my-arguments-even-more-valid Surma
Re: [dev] picture
Public domain, or if you really love CC, use CC0, all their other licenses are crap. uriel 2010/6/20 ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma alexander.su...@googlemail.com: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Baumann dan...@debian.org wrote: On 06/20/2010 05:26 PM, Martin Kopta wrote: May I post this to another list? I think it's great ;) Yes, of course. I can send you vectors if you want to. please do so, bonus points for publishing it under a free license. Regards, Daniel -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- Alexander cussing-makes-my-arguments-even-more-valid Surma
Re: [dev] picture
The problem with public domain is, that it's not really global (some country behave differently). And whats wrong with CC-BY? or CC-SA? PS: I don't want to spark yet another license war! Just askin for reasons. Surma
Re: [dev] picture
Dnia 20 czerwca 2010 23:08 ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma alexander.su...@googlemail.com napisał(a): The problem with public domain is, that it's not really global (some country behave differently). +
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:16:11PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:08, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: The problem with public domain is, that it's not really global (some country behave differently). I used this in rc-httpd: LICENSE None. rc-httpd is in the public domain, I give up all rights to it. For countries without a concept of public domain, consider it entirely without owner. If anyone sees any problems with it, I'd like to know. entirely without owner is the same thing as public domain. Some (many) countries don't recognize it. Which is to say, when you write something, you own it, and you don't have the legal right to disclaim ownership. Saying you've disclaimed ownership of something may well imply that you've anyone permission to do anything they like with it, but there's no legal standing in that. CC0 disclaims ownership in countries where it's possible and issues explicit permissions everywhere else. Not that there's anything wrong with BY-SA or any other CC licenses. It's a matter of personal preference (though I'm personally never fond of SA-type clauses, especially when they take on a viral bent). -- Kris Maglione If C gives you enough rope to hang yourself, C++ gives you enough rope to bind and gag your neighbourhood, rig the sails in a small ship and still have enough rope left to hang yourself from the yardarm. --Anonymous
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:49:43PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: WTFPL Lol, did not know that one! That's even better. I prefer BEER-WARE myself. -- Kris Maglione A program is portable to the extent that it can be easily moved to a new computing environment with much less effort than would be required to write it afresh. --W. Stan Brown
Re: [dev] picture
On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:54, Kris Maglione wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:16:11PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:08, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: The problem with public domain is, that it's not really global (some country behave differently). I used this in rc-httpd: LICENSE None. rc-httpd is in the public domain, I give up all rights to it. For countries without a concept of public domain, consider it entirely without owner. If anyone sees any problems with it, I'd like to know. entirely without owner is the same thing as public domain. Some (many) countries don't recognize it. Which is to say, when you write something, you own it, and you don't have the legal right to disclaim ownership. Saying you've disclaimed ownership of something may well imply that you've anyone permission to do anything they like with it, but there's no legal standing in that. Ah, thanks. Grr, stupid laws, making me *think!* CC0 disclaims ownership in countries where it's possible and issues explicit permissions everywhere else. Not that there's anything wrong with BY-SA or any other CC licenses. It's a matter of personal preference (though I'm personally never fond of SA-type clauses, especially when they take on a viral bent). -- Kris Maglione If C gives you enough rope to hang yourself, C++ gives you enough rope to bind and gag your neighbourhood, rig the sails in a small ship and still have enough rope left to hang yourself from the yardarm. --Anonymous
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote: Ah, thanks. Grr, stupid laws, making me *think!* Of course, nobody's forcing you to go to any of those retarded countries. In fact, such countries are clearly led and populated by complete morons, so there's no reason to care what their backwards laws are. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:08, ⚖ Alexander Surma Surma wrote: The problem with public domain is, that it's not really global (some country behave differently). I used this in rc-httpd: LICENSE None. rc-httpd is in the public domain, I give up all rights to it. For countries without a concept of public domain, consider it entirely without owner. If anyone sees any problems with it, I'd like to know. Are you a lawyer with expertise in the arcane rules of copyright in every country? No, then don't think you can pull a 'license' or 'disclaimer' out of your ass that will be worth anything. People already have done the homework, either use CC0 (or MIT/BSD/ISC license) or ignore the problem and just say 'public domain' and to hell with people living in countries with terminally braindead copyright laws. uriel
Re: [dev] picture
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Kris Maglione maglion...@gmail.com wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with BY-SA or any other CC licenses. It's a matter of personal preference (though I'm personally never fond of SA-type clauses, especially when they take on a viral bent). It is not a matter of personal preference, it has many of the same problems as the GPL, with the added confusion and complication of much worse license-proliferation. That some CC licenses don't even allow 'commercial use' (as if this could be defined!) should be enough of a red flag to stay away from the whole lot. CC0 on the other hand is quite different and is very useful, and everyone should use it if they want to allow as many people as possible to use their work but don't want to spend a lifetime learning all the retarded legal braindamage spread all over the world. uriel
