Hello Tanguy,
thanks for your response, you wrote:
I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it
with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor
agreement.
I would normally agree with such stance.
But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka un
Am 06.01.2012 05:14, schrieb Ben Finney:
Kay Hayen writes:
I want everybody to receive under "GPLv3" and then to contribute back by
default under "GPLv3 and Apache license 2.0", or optionally under "GPLv3"
only.
At whose option?
The contributor option of cour
Hello Ben,
thanks for your reply, you wrote:
By “ASF 2.0” I assume you mean “the Apache license version 2.0”. I will
use “Apache 2.0” which I gather is the more widely used name for that
license.
I will do so too then.
Kay Hayen writes:
It is supposed to work like this: Everybody
Hello Tanguy,
thanks for breaking it down:
# If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches
So far, this is a contributor agreement.
# or make the software
# available to licensors of this software in either form,
But here you are starting to add on the license, taking high risks
of
Hello Ben,
you wrote:
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is
under "ASF2.0" for everybody pretty automatic.
Is that your intent? If so, I don't know why the license is not ASF 2.0
from the start.
I gave my motivation in the original email. In short I don't want t
Am 05.01.2012 19:53, schrieb Kay Hayen:
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is under
"ASF2.0" for everybody pretty automatic. That way, my only "unfairness"
is to not put my work under GPLv3, a right that I offer everybody else
too though.
So
Hello Francesco,
[...]
Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that
allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time
granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to
relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license at a time of
your c
hat is it. It's also similar to what Christofer proposes.
I would make it say something like this:
# If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches or make the software
# available to licensors of this software in either form, you
# automatically them grant them a transferable, non-revok
Hello Christofer,
The interesting part is contribution copyright assignment. I actually do
_not_ want Nuitka to have to stay GPLv3 when it's "ready". Then I
_definitely_ want it to have another license, with "ASF2.0" being the
current front runner.
I'm not a fan of copyright assignment, and w
en. Therefore GPLv3 without exception for the generated code.
And with the copyright assignments, I can - and already do - work with
contributors to achieve the goal even faster, while being able to apply
the "ASF2.0" to Nuitka later on, so then even more people will join me.
I
Hello Ben,
you wrote:
Am 05.01.2012 13:39, schrieb Ben Finney:
Kay Hayen writes:
First my intent: I believe intent matters in copyright. Please do not
discuss if my intent is good or bad, or if my approach will be
effective or not for a project.
Please don't attempt to set
Hello MJ,
Am 05.01.2012 12:41, schrieb MJ Ray:
// This code is in part copyright Kay Hayen, license GPLv3. This has the
consequence that
// your must either obtain a commercial license or also publish your
original source code
// under the same license unless you don't distribute this s
n the generated source, that the parts of Nuitka
copied into the created source, are still GPLv3 and thus the compiled
source has to be GPLv3 compatible, and as such:
Quote:
// This code is in part copyright Kay Hayen, license GPLv3. This has the
consequence that
// your must either obta
13 matches
Mail list logo
