Generally speaking, law professionals who practice as
part of a larger firm are prohibited from offering
free advice under the terms of their association with
the firm. Only if the firm agrees to do something for
free can the individual offer free advice.
> -Original Message-
> From: an
On 24 August 2012 14:47, Kent A. Reed wrote:
> Maybe we'll get lucky and Andy's contact will work out.
This is the guy, but he hasn't responded yet:
http://www.cornwallstreet.co.uk/component/content/article/34-profiles/191-Simon-Bradshaw
I suspect his time might be full and expensive.
--
atp
On 8/24/2012 3:06 PM, EBo wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:01:39 -0400, Dave wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I know that there are some companies who have used LinuxCNC as their
>> machine controller and I am not convinced that they have followed the
>> existing licensing on the LinuxCNC software.
>>
>> I
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM, EBo wrote:
> Would you prefer we discuss other licenses such as MIT, BSD, CC?
>
Unfortunately, I think we should be as open as possible with our licensing
and purist on what we allow in the codebase. We should decide on a license
and not allow code to make it int
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:01:39 -0400, Dave wrote:
> ...
>
> I know that there are some companies who have used LinuxCNC as their
> machine controller and I am not convinced that they have followed the
> existing licensing on the LinuxCNC software.
>
> If a company or individual does not follow the ex
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:52:39 -0400, Eric Keller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Lee Studley
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I personally feel its sad to make licensing so complex in an open
>> source or GPL type
>> environment. It impedes the flow free associative sharing of ideas (
>> Oppenheimer-end
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:54:38 -0700, Lee Studley wrote:
> ... Maybe "ProDarwin Licensing"
would that automatically nominate it for a Darwin Award
EBo --
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will co
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Lee Studley wrote:
>
> I personally feel its sad to make licensing so complex in an open
> source or GPL type
> environment. It impedes the flow free associative sharing of ideas (
> Oppenheimer-endorsed ).
>
I agree. The militant license fanatics are trying to m
Just was in jest, of course, credit will also be given, but in reality
this scenario often happens
internationally.
I personally feel its sad to make licensing so complex in an open
source or GPL type
environment. It impedes the flow free associative sharing of ideas (
Oppenheimer-endorsed ).
Proposal: Attila Licensing: " if you put source code out there for
people to see, we will conquer it, reorganize it, and make it ours!!!
HAHAHHAHA"
On 8/24/2012 8:52 AM, Dave wrote:
> On 8/24/2012 1:13 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2012 um 20:17 schrieb Kent A. Reed:
>>
>>
>>> O
On 8/24/2012 8:35 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> If anyone wants to rebut, dispute, or otherwise challenge my analysis
> or conclusions about the copyright status of Linuxcnc, it would be
> great if you could do so some time in the next two weeks or so. If you
> need more time to compose your arguments,
On 8/24/2012 1:13 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
> Am 23.08.2012 um 20:17 schrieb Kent A. Reed:
>
>
>> On 8/23/2012 12:59 PM, Michael Haberler wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>>> As for Linuxcnc3, I think it would be foolish to start such effort without
>>> a clear, stated intent, and actually a very
On 8/24/2012 9:04 AM, EBo wrote:
> Has anyone thought of contacting a law school and see if a student
> would take it on as a class project?
>
> EBo --
That's a clever idea, EBo. It might be particularly attractive to a law
school because of the recent dust-ups over software patents and such.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:35:54 -0400, Matt Shaver wrote:
> If anyone wants to rebut, dispute, or otherwise challenge my analysis
> or conclusions about the copyright status of Linuxcnc, it would be
> great if you could do so some time in the next two weeks or so. If
> you
> need more time to compose
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:13:11 +0200, Michael Haberler wrote:
> Am 23.08.2012 um 20:17 schrieb Kent A. Reed:
>
>> On 8/23/2012 12:59 PM, Michael Haberler wrote:
> ...
>>> As for Linuxcnc3, I think it would be foolish to start such effort
>>> without a clear, stated intent, and actually a very simple
On 24 August 2012 14:35, Matt Shaver wrote:
> If anyone wants to rebut, dispute, or otherwise challenge my analysis
> or conclusions about the copyright status of Linuxcnc,
I passed it on to an IP Law Barrister friend. But I am not sure if he
will reply.
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you don't ow
If anyone wants to rebut, dispute, or otherwise challenge my analysis
or conclusions about the copyright status of Linuxcnc, it would be
great if you could do so some time in the next two weeks or so. If you
need more time to compose your arguments, just post a short e-mail to
the list saying so!
Am 23.08.2012 um 19:18 schrieb Kenneth Lerman:
> We would probably like to support multiple (replaceable) interpreters,
> so there would be an easy means to define new interpreted languages.
yes. But before I'd go ahead and carry over the existing pluggable interpreter
model in some shape or f
18 matches
Mail list logo
