On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
>> some legal framework kicks in to overcome this problem...
>> I'm pretty sure it works something like that with
>> copyright on books too... not?
>
> Not.
>
> "Orphan works" - http://en.wi
On Jul 31, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> some legal framework kicks in to overcome this problem...
> I'm pretty sure it works something like that with
> copyright on books too... not?
Not.
"Orphan works" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
See also "abandonware" - http://
> What's the meaning of "less restrictive license?" It's the GPLv2.
> It's not compatible with GPLv3, but then GPLv3 isn't compatible
> with GPLv2, so why not call them both restrictive?
Both of them are restrictive without doubt
--
Regards,
Konstantin
--
On 30 July 2010 19:51, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote:
>> even if all the code was rewritten, the code ownership would not change
>> at least if the changes are incremental. If this is true, you might be
>> unable to relicense OpenBabel without permission from OpenEye even if
>> all the original code is
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> Imagine if it the contributor had been one person who is now
> a beach bum on some island in the South Pacific, and who is
> impossible to contact. Would you have worse or better feelings
> towards being unable to change the licens
On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Jean Brefort wrote:
> Somebody argued about the same kind of issue for another project (namely
> Goffice, see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463248) that
> even if all the code was rewritten, the code ownership would not change
> at least if the changes are
> even if all the code was rewritten, the code ownership would not change
> at least if the changes are incremental. If this is true, you might be
> unable to relicense OpenBabel without permission from OpenEye even if
> all the original code is rewritten.
Actually, what Craig is referencing (I th
Le vendredi 30 juillet 2010 à 10:16 -0700, Craig James a écrit :
> On 7/30/10 9:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > I am forwarding the following open request from OpenEye through the
> > InChI-discuss list. Now that gthe details are clear I would be grateful
> > if the critical aspects could be re
On 7/30/10 9:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> I am forwarding the following open request from OpenEye through the
> InChI-discuss list. Now that gthe details are clear I would be grateful
> if the critical aspects could be re-reviewed.
>
> There is an issue for me and a co-author and I'd like to k
I am forwarding the following open request from OpenEye through the
InChI-discuss list. Now that gthe details are clear I would be grateful if
the critical aspects could be re-reviewed.
There is an issue for me and a co-author and I'd like to know
authoritatively what the implications of re-licens
10 matches
Mail list logo
