Matt.Wilkie writes:
> The DEMs now in question were originally acquired from the public domain.
What exactly do you mean by that? It is rather unlikely that any such data
is truly in the public domain.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt.Wilkie writes:
> The DEMs now in question were originally acquired from the public domain.
What exactly do you mean by that? It is rather unlikely that any such data
is truly in the public domain.
Perhaps it is something like the way that
> The license I'd like should:
>
> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
This will probably may make it non-free.
If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
expensive data set and selling the whole, use the GPL.
> - have freedom to modify and ch
>>- have freedom to modify and change and combine with other data
>>- keep original sources of data & copyright notices in all
distributions
>
>`Keeping original sources of data' means quoting the source of
>the data, right?
>It doesn't mean keeping the data in its original source format,
>
Matt said:
>> The license I'd like should:
>>
>> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
Peter said:
>This will probably may make it non-free.
>If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
>expensive data set and selling the whole, use the GPL.
Mmm. I don'
Thank you all for the many and informative thoughts on
my query. I was hoping for two things. One, that there
already existed a license specifically structured around
information rather than programs. And two, consensus
from you folks - "Oh, you want license XYZ." :-) Looks
like I'm not going to
"Matt.Wilkie" wrote:
> Matt said:
> >> The license I'd like should:
> >>
> >> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
>
> Peter said:
> >This will probably may make it non-free.
> >If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
> >expensive data set and sel
>From: Jonathan P Tomer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>another one you may want to consider is the licence w3c is
>using for their standards... there was a thread about it in debian-legal a
>while ago, which >should be in the archives with a reference.
I was unable to find this thread by scanning th
8 matches
Mail list logo
