On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:00:00 +0200
Mark Weyer wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were
> > looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first
> > time around.
>
> No, I hav
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were
> looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time
> around.
No, I have not. I am still open to suggestions lest I have to add to
license
Hi Mark,
I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were
looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time
around.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00072.html
kk
--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian user / gNewSense contributor
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts
> > 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on
> > http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/
>
> Consider how hard it would be to have
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts
> 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on
> http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/
Consider how hard it would be to have the law say "products must contain
warnings about nut
Adam Sampson wrote:
> This warning isn't as silly as it sounds: peanuts are legumes rather
> than nuts, so if you're allergic to nuts you may still be able to eat
Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts
300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on
http:
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy
your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there
will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes
it a replacement for the LGPL.
There most
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:25:51 +
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
> In message <20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se>, Greg Harris
> writes
> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800
> >Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located
> >> in U
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:25:51PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> At the end of the day, what I do, I do it IN ENGLAND,
No, you don't. When you post to this mailing list, you are deliberately
engaged in an act that crosses national boundaries (both your interlocutors
in this discussion, and
In message <20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se>, Greg Harris
writes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in
Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort
against someone locate
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:45:23PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >>> But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal
> >>> statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very
> >>> odd that you could be sued
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:45:23PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>>> But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute?
>>> Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could
>>> be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been
>>>
"Anthony W. Youngman" writes:
> Dry Roast Peanuts
> Caution! This product may contain nuts!
This warning isn't as silly as it sounds: peanuts are legumes rather
than nuts, so if you're allergic to nuts you may still be able to eat
peanuts provided they've not been mixed with other nuts during
pr
In message <200901201403.48978.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are
telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have
only ever ONCE set
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
> writes
> >On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >> In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
> >> writes
> >>
In message <200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
>Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add
>disclaimers... Fra
Sean Kellogg wrote:
>On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall
>> such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given
>> the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed
On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
> writes
> >Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add
> >disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too
> >"matter-o
In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add
disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too
"matter-of-factly" for some d-l participents, leading those who
disagree to accuse him
On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote:
> Дмитрий Ледков writes:
>
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
> >
> > Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from
> > mentors list - does it stand
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:03:32 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Дмитрий Ледков writes:
>
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
> >
> > Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from
> > mentors list - does it stand fo
Дмитрий Ледков writes:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > [...]
> > Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
>
> Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from
> mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What
> about the others?
For reasons
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:26:20AM +, Дмитрий Ледков wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft
> > licenses and still have a copyleft license...
> > I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same
> > time; it
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>
> You're welcome! :)
>
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft
> licenses and still
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
You're welcome! :)
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent.
>
> I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong c
Thanks for your reply.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
>
> [...]
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> > > - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> > >
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to
> make the whole lot free?
If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no
license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between "little bit, but
still copyrigh
In message <20090118174305.620e0088@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco
Poli writes
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> software.
[...]
Maybe I should have been less terse.
- With "source requiremen
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
[...]
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> > - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> > software.
[...]
> Maybe I should have been less terse.
> - With "source requirement" I meant that
Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> software.
> - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
> de
Mark Weyer wrote:
> I have a small software project which I intend to release soon.
> I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to
> be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing.
>
> What I am looking for:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but sh
Heya
David Paleino wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
>
>> What I am looking for:
>> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
>> software.
>> - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
>> derivatives
Hello,
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> What I am looking for:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> software.
> - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
> derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follo
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon.
I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to
be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing.
What I am looking for:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
34 matches
Mail list logo
