Thomas Lord writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary
> > posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman.
> > Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the
> > philosophy of the GPL to
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary
posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman.
Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the
philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I d
Lately, continuing some of the threads that started back in the
revc days, I've been working on a distributed, decentralized
operating system. My system exists in purely web-oriented
world in the sense that, for example, all data is either XML
or mime attachments. The idea is that instead of b
Miles Bader writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the
> > first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second
> > being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the
> first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second
> being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only
> the legally enforceable terms.
On Nov 16, 2007 2:11 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
> circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all
> of those things in perfect order.
>
> Collecting copyright assignments is trivial busine
Miles Bader writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
> >
> > Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
>
> The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow
> "FSF practic
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business,
Unfortunately, it is not. The basic mechanics of it are trivial, sure:
collect autographs.The details matter a lot though.
Recall that it wouldn't have been simply the FSF office doing
this, the way they do for
It's only a real problem if you want to delegate decisions about
the terms of your license to the FSF. But I thought it was not
your intent to do so at that time.
One could have assigned the copyright to Tom.
___
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
G
I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all
of those things in perfect order.
Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, and doesn't
require any effort at all. Infact, it is less effort than n
I find the following article may be of interest:
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/111207-hash.html
Of course this is a topic for SCM systems,,,
--
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.o
Thomas Lord writes:
> Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
The only legal problem is that if a file gets distributed separately
from the COPYING file, the recipient has no way of knowing her GPL
rights, except to ask the
Miles Bader wrote:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow
"FSF practice" and make thei
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
>
> Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow
"FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't
14 matches
Mail list logo
