Re: Jagged Alliance 2 Source Code

On 7/4/07, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is this thing (or any license in general, if that could be more easily answered) somehow mixable with the GPL? Eg. that I publish my derived work under the GPL and make an exception for Strategy First to grant them what they want? The licenc

Re: "all rights reserved" and GPL

ically granted under a licence ... are reserved." 5) Is it *advisable* to use such a terminology in a copyright statement in a file licensed under the GPL? Regards, Nic -- Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nic.suzor.com/ 2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0 7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C -- To UNSUBSCR

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

opers). Can we get some examples, or at least a plausible use case which we can put forward to CC? If we keep talking about hypotheticals, I think we're less likely to be heard. nic. --- Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nic.suzor.com 2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0 7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Fwd: Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib]

mous attribution). If you're looking for another licence to suggest, which you know will get into main, try the GPL. Licence proliferation is a bad thing; unless there's a good reason not to, I would always suggest adopting a GPL-compatible licence. nic. --- Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] h

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

ect lead, who intends on discussing it with CC in Stanford next month. I still suggest that you raise the issues on the cc-licenses list, however. nic. -- Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

he package you are distributing won't have a licence of its own). I would suggest changing the wording from 'the license' to 'that license' ('the complete text of that license'. On the other hand, I could just be picky - the statement is reasonably clear. Regards, Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

(excuse the duplication - I forgot to reply to the list.) * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or > > help to sue for any reason, where the resu

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

because there are no exclusive rights to sue under. The remainder of the 'licence' seems to be mainly explanation / ettiquette provisions anyway. It would probably be polite to keep these sections, but not in the form of a copyright licence. Regards, Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]