Seg, 2007-06-11 às 10:37 -0500, rjack escreveu:
> Using anything beside a Free Software Foundation approved license is the
> the equivalent of clubbing innocent baby seals.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070611082734557
Hah, how quickly you transform
Microsoft clubbing the Free
Seg, 2007-06-11 às 17:31 +, sourceview escreveu:
> I must take exception to your initial ideological statement
> (assumption of fact not proven) which states that "most open source
> software is gpled." I wholeheartedly disagree, and if we were to use
> precise quantitative terms, the figure w
On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199902779
>
> --
> Pick YourOpenSourcePoison: Microsoft's Patent Claims Or GPLv3
>
> Controversy swirls around the revised General Public License, and
> Microsoft keeps
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-06-10, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the thing I was thinking about if the House bill had passed was that
any contribution by a government contractor (like a university research
project) would be in the public domain. How
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
> On 2007-06-10, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But the thing I was thinking about if the House bill had passed was that
> > any contribution by a government contractor (like a university research
> > project) would be in the public domain. How might that a
Arnoud writes:
> Why would it affect the GPL?
It would not have affected the GPL. What it would have done is caused some
works that were released under the GPL to be effectively placed in the
public domain. It also would have resulted in a bunch of stuff that ended
up closed source being effecti
On 2007-06-10, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the thing I was thinking about if the House bill had passed was that
> any contribution by a government contractor (like a university research
> project) would be in the public domain. How might that affect the GPL,
> and if it did, would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>In the 108th Congress, there was an effort (H.R. 2613) to extend that
>to works produced under government contracts. "Copyright protection
>under this title is not available for any work produced pursuant to
>scientific research substantially funded by the
Lee Hollaar writes:
> But the thing I was thinking about if the House bill had passed was that
> any contribution by a government contractor (like a university research
> project) would be in the public domain. How might that affect the GPL,
> and if it did, would it mean the loss of a great sourc
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>
>>In the 108th Congress, there was an effort (H.R. 2613) to extend that
>>to works produced under government contracts. "Copyright protection
>>under this title is not available for an
Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> It is interesting to ponder what that might do to GPLed software written
> in universities under federal grants and contracts.
Note DARPA below.
http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/211
--
Roads to the GPL
Posted June 6th, 2007 by editor
in Software Libre Richard Hilles
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199902779
> Underscoring the user community's clout, Robert J.
>Carey, CIO of the Navy, last week issued a memo mandating that open
>source be considered in all Navy software acquisi
http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199902779
--
Pick Your Open Source Poison: Microsoft's Patent Claims Or GPLv3
Controversy swirls around the revised General Public License, and
Microsoft keeps the heat on.
By Charles Babcock
InformationWeek
Jun 9, 2007 12:00 A
13 matches
Mail list logo
