On 18/09/13 11:55, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 17/09/13 16:27, bearophile wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
Well, I guess the best thing would be just to write here, "I license the code
under the terms of the Boost license" or something similar (public domain is
in some ways less good beca
On 17/09/13 16:27, bearophile wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
Well, I guess the best thing would be just to write here, "I license the code
under the terms of the Boost license" or something similar (public domain is
in some ways less good because not every jurisdiction recognizes it, but as
fa
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
Well, I guess the best thing would be just to write here, "I
license the code under the terms of the Boost license" or
something similar (public domain is in some ways less good
because not every jurisdiction recognizes it, but as far as I'm
concerned it's fine too).
On 17/09/13 15:18, bearophile wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
I have a specific interest in your circular queue implementation:
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Queue/Usage#Faster_Version
If you restrict your desires to just one D program, instead of
the about one thousand of Rosettacode the situa
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
I have a specific interest in your circular queue
implementation:
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Queue/Usage#Faster_Version
If you restrict your desires to just one D program, instead of
the about one thousand of Rosettacode the situation becomes
_much_ simpler :-)
I wr
On 17/09/13 14:03, bearophile wrote:
I am writing code for Rosettacode since years, I have written, rewritten, I have
modified code written by others, and so on. I have also written many entries
before having an account in that site, so there's no proof the author is me. I
have also written many
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
Would you be prepared to license your own examples under Boost?
I don't know what your intentions were for others' use of your
code, but as it stands the FDL license makes them impossible to
re-use.
I am writing code for Rosettacode since years, I have written,
rew
On 17/09/13 13:32, bearophile wrote:
I am just following the common licensing you see in that site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2.html
Recently the author of most of the PicoLisp entries has collected them in a
commercial book, this has caused some troubles.
If you want info about Rosetta
On 17/09/13 13:17, Iain Buclaw wrote:
An example of what the situation is using GNU FDL - last time I checked material
under the GNU FDL could not be put into GPL code and GPL code could not be put
into a GNU FDL manual. So watch out! :-)
Indeed. An unfortunate situation, no?
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
This message is especially for bearophile, but applies to
anyone posting examples on RosettaCode :-)
Can I ask you to clarify your licensing intentions for these
examples? By default all on RosettaCode is GNU Free
Documentation License, which does not really play in
On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 11:04:13 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
This message is especially for bearophile, but applies to
anyone posting examples on RosettaCode :-)
Can I ask you to clarify your licensing intentions for these
examples? By default all on RosettaCode is GNU Free
This message is especially for bearophile, but applies to anyone posting
examples on RosettaCode :-)
Can I ask you to clarify your licensing intentions for these examples? By
default all on RosettaCode is GNU Free Documentation License, which does not
really play in a friendly way with ... ju
12 matches
Mail list logo
