On 02/11/2011 08:41 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 08:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Another example is that
>> it is not possible to really "sell" aka assign copyright to another
>> entity at all in some regions.
> which regions?
Look up special author rights in Europe
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 08:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Another example is that
> it is not possible to really "sell" aka assign copyright to another
> entity at all in some regions.
which regions?
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Coimbatore LUG rox
http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
__
On 02/11/2011 08:24 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I know some one floated an idea that 'public domain' is not a legally
> recognised concept in the US - but I doubt it has any validity.
I wasn't talking about U.S.
> Anyway
> in India it is not only recognised, but codified. btw, what has this
On 02/11/2011 08:20 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> unfortunately I do not move in such exalted circles - so why do you not
> tell us what the developers told you about how licensing impacted
> NetBSD?
I have already answered that in a previous mail where I gave the
citation. I rather not go in a
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 03:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> [ The different modes of development have already well established
> names. Look up Open Core, centralized copyright etc)
these are fruits of my independent research and observations
>
> > note 1: Change of license is only possible if
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 02:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/10/2011 08:25 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > I have read the citation you have given - 6 times so far. There is
> > nothing about license there - the citation talks of what you call
> > governance - governance is bad and is the root
On 02/10/2011 05:07 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> 2. Company mode (free) - where the project is mainly run by a company
> and the said company does not have any proprietary products based on the
> project in question. Usually these companies are able to attract large
> number of developers because
On 02/10/2011 05:07 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[ The different modes of development have already well established
names. Look up Open Core, centralized copyright etc)
> note 1: Change of license is only possible if all the contributors agree
> to the change. Even if one disagrees, his work h
On 02/10/2011 08:25 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I have read the citation you have given - 6 times so far. There is
> nothing about license there - the citation talks of what you call
> governance - governance is bad and is the root of the problem.
You misunderstood the purpose of the reference
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 11:09 +0100, Aanjhan R wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
> > conclusions after that point.If you want to discuss this
> further,
> > catch me up on IRC or mail me offlist. I am sure the list needn't
> be
> > bothered further with this.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> conclusions after that point. If you want to discuss this further,
> catch me up on IRC or mail me offlist. I am sure the list needn't be
> bothered further with this.
No way. Just because people are not contributing doesn't mean they ar
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 04:20 +, Asokan Pichai wrote:
> That I am not very sure.
*you* are in my camp - w000t
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Coimbatore LUG rox
http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
___
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in
[SNIPPED]
I do not want to discuss anything offlist - I am quite sure that lots of
> list members are eagerly following the discussion
+N
(and most of them
> cheering for you)
>
That I am not very sure.
--
Asokan Pichai
*---*
We will find a way. Or, make one. (Hannibal)
__
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 18:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > frankly I am totally unable to understand the point you have been
> > making
>
> You already agreed on the fundamental point I was making which is that
> a
> decision on which license to pick for your projects is an important
> one.
yes
On 02/09/2011 05:43 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 17:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> You continue to vehemently miss the point I have been making.
> frankly I am totally unable to understand the point you have been
> making
You already agreed on the fundamental point I wa
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 17:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You continue to vehemently miss the point I have been making.
frankly I am totally unable to understand the point you have been
making.
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Coimbatore LUG rox
http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
_
On 02/09/2011 07:08 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> are you implying that I have not done research? My research shows that
> choice of license is irrelevant with regards to success, failure or
> sustainability of a project, which solely depends on the project
> fulfilling a need and on the methodolo
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 18:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/05/2011 08:42 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> >
> > well the whole thing started when you said 'look what happened to
> > NetBSD' - so what happened
>
> Not quite what I said. The whole thing actually started off as a
> commentary on
On 02/05/2011 08:42 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
> well the whole thing started when you said 'look what happened to
> NetBSD' - so what happened
Not quite what I said. The whole thing actually started off as a
commentary on licenses and not about success or failure about anything.
If you want
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 20:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > run the show. This is the BSD style of development - but apparently
> the
> > GPL guys do things differently - can you enlighten us how and in
> what
> > way their nature of development is different?
> >
>
> You are describing governance
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 20:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I am not talking of nature of development - I am talking of success
> or
> > failure of a project.
> >
>
> Sure. We are talking about two different things. I wasn't concerned
> about
> failure or success in any of these discussions.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 09:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 02/03/2011 09:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > > I do not hobnob with the biggies - but even at my level I value my
> > > choice of license very heavily. But the point is
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> The two BDFLs have been very successful in attracting and keeping
> developers - at the same time are very strict about enforcing the basic
> principles - like the amount of code to be allowed in a template or the
> utmost attempts to avo
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 09:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 09:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > I do not hobnob with the biggies - but even at my level I value my
> > choice of license very heavily. But the point is that you are yet to
> > show how the choice of license is in *any*
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 09:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 09:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > I do not hobnob with the biggies - but even at my level I value my
> > choice of license very heavily. But the point is that you are yet to
> > show how the choice of license is in *any*
On 02/03/2011 09:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I do not hobnob with the biggies - but even at my level I value my
> choice of license very heavily. But the point is that you are yet to
> show how the choice of license is in *any* way relevant to the success
> or failure of a project.
I have n
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 08:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 08:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote
> > nope - just analyse all major projects and you will find that
> license is
> > largely irrelevant - the success/failure of a project depends on:
> >
> > 1. if there is a need for it
> > 2.
On 02/03/2011 08:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote
> nope - just analyse all major projects and you will find that license is
> largely irrelevant - the success/failure of a project depends on:
>
> 1. if there is a need for it
> 2. the attitude of the core developers
>
> I have given enough examples f
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 18:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 03:36 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > I assume that someone has seen the error in his ways and now only
> > contributes to GPLed projects? Some citations would be nice.
>
> Nowhere did I claim that BSD is unsuitable. Just
On 02/02/2011 03:36 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I assume that someone has seen the error in his ways and now only
> contributes to GPLed projects? Some citations would be nice.
Nowhere did I claim that BSD is unsuitable. Just that the license is a
major attribute of a project and has a impact
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:15 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Then you quote a reference that has nothing to do with the license
> > and attributes the problem to bad management - locking features so
> that
> > only one person can work on it, and out of frustration people are
> > forking or not cont
On 02/02/2011 09:14 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> you are evading the point. First you say netbsd is in doldrums due to
> the BSD license where people are allowed to fork and not contribute
> back.
> Then you quote a reference that has nothing to do with the license
> and attributes the problem
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 19:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 03:26 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 14:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
> >>> this mail has nothing whatsoever to do with license o
On 02/01/2011 03:26 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 14:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
>>> this mail has nothing whatsoever to do with license or contributing
>> back
>>> or anything.
>> I am not relying only
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 14:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
> > this mail has nothing whatsoever to do with license or contributing
> back
> > or anything.
>
> I am not relying only on the mail. Feel free to talk to the NetBSD
th
On 02/01/2011 11:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 21:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> what happened to netbsd? as far as I can see it is still alive and
>>> kicking. So what is the problem?
>> Alive, yes. Kicking, not really. They had a big problem not too
>> long
>> ag
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 21:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > what happened to netbsd? as far as I can see it is still alive and
> > kicking. So what is the problem?
>
> Alive, yes. Kicking, not really. They had a big problem not too
> long
> ago where the organizations working with NetBSD were
On 01/31/2011 05:27 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> This is because others can and will fork BSD code and keep them
>> proprietary and this business model won't work c.f. NetBSD
> what happened to netbsd? as far as I can see it is still
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> This is because others can and will fork BSD code and keep them
> proprietary and this business model won't work c.f. NetBSD
what happened to netbsd? as far as I can see it is still alive and
kicking. So what is the problem?
--
regards
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > versions. Redhat is of course an honourable exception. I have yet to
> see
> > this watered down dual version stuff in the BSD license world.
>
> This is because others can and will fork BSD code and keep them
> proprietary and this busi
On 01/30/2011 03:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I misunderstood you - I thought you were talking of software companies
> that produce code. In this case about 90% of them release under the GPL,
> and a good number of them are bogus in the sense that they release a
> watered down version as bait
Hi,
Following were the major questions raised.
>is it OK for you or someone to 'endorse'/recommend licences?
Why not?
Please correct me if I am wrong but commenting/endorsing/recommending
something (in absolute sense or relative to something else) is Freedom
of speech.
>Is there and legal/politi
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 18:55 -0800, Ashish Bhatia wrote:
> > looks to me that this is basically selling GPL - up to you.
> Would you mind elaborating how I am biased towards GPL?
if you are not biased towards GPL, we can argue further - so can you
clarify whether you prefer GPL to other licenses? F
> The complete statement is "Avoid BSD/MIT and use Apache instead (since
> Apache is legally more explicit)."
>
If it is just a list of licences, is it OK for you or someone to
'endorse'/recommend licences? Is there and legal/political reason behind
other than your own preference?
Swapnil
Mukt
>> due to permissive nature, derivative work based on BSD code is more
>> prevalent.
> Citation needed. You will likely find that GPL code usage far
> outweighs any other license in any actual surveys.
May be I was bit incoherent but what I meant is that given a
dual-licensed code, most compani
On 01/30/2011 08:25 AM, Ashish Bhatia wrote:
> Where did I said that?
> The closest statement to this I can find is "BSD based code is heavily
> used by major companies."
> And yes, I do stand by it. The reason being the GPL compliance is
> tough for most companies to comply to
> due to permissive
> looks to me that this is basically selling GPL - up to you.
Would you mind elaborating how I am biased towards GPL?
>But there are two glaring mistakes.
> 1. You state that most companies use BSD license.
Where did I said that?
The closest statement to this I can find is "BSD based code is heav
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 17:05 -0800, Ashish Bhatia wrote:
> I wrote a small blog post about common FAQ pertaining to FOSS
> licenses.
> While I do not consider myself an expert of this matter, this post is
> just
> an effort to present just a set of FAQ which software engineers
> usually
> have.
> An
Hi LUG members,
I wrote a small blog post about common FAQ pertaining to FOSS licenses.
While I do not consider myself an expert of this matter, this post is just
an effort to present just a set of FAQ which software engineers usually
have.
Any comments/suggestions are welcome here as well as in t
49 matches
Mail list logo
