Hi Decibel;
I guess this goes more into the field of business development than code or
licenses, but I enjoy such conversations so... :-)
> My argument still stands. If someone else can support your code better
> than you can, you've got a serious problem. (My views are my own, etc.,
> etc.)
A
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:01:47AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Decibel! wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 11:26:34AM -0700, John Locke wrote:
> >> As a commercial company, I prefer releasing code under the GPL instead
> >> of the LGPL (or th
On 8/20/07, M Lubratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Can anyone point me to where the report queries are generated (balance
> sheet and income statement)? I have to alter the reports slightly (make the
> reports per share). Any help would be appreciated!
The best forum for these sor
I don't agree with the assertion that the Mono cases don't apply to us due
to the fact that "linking" is not used in the same sense in Mono-type
applications as in C or even Perl. Even if it were, the only people who
draw such a line are the FSF (and it is not in the license, just the FAQ).
(Does
There is a lot of rhetoric about what the GPL does or doesn't do. I am
going to try to help cut through some of this based on my experiences in
both GPL and BSD-type communities.
On 8/20/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Ok, sorry, the 'kool aid' remark does go beyond simply
On 8/20/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Murtagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Sure, but I don't really see the much of an advantage in our case to
> change
> > licenses (to v3 or LGPL). At the moment, I don't see the current license
> > causing any problems or confusio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> The discussion about the GPL v3 has caused me to think about one other key
> area we probably all need to consider: Are there portions of our appliction
> that may require additional permissions (beyond the GPL v2 o
Hi all;
The discussion about the GPL v3 has caused me to think about one other key
area we probably all need to consider: Are there portions of our appliction
that may require additional permissions (beyond the GPL v2 or later) in
order to facilitate interop with other systems. I hope everyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
> Christopher Murtagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> Sure, but I don't really see the much of an advantage in our case to change
>> licenses (to v3 or LGPL). At the moment, I don't see the current license
>> causing any problems o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On Saturday 18 August 2007 10:47, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> As a core member, if it were up to me, we would ditch GPL all together.
>> I don't subscribe to the ideology present within it nor do I drink RMS
>> brand kool aid.
>
> S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Decibel! wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 11:26:34AM -0700, John Locke wrote:
>> As a commercial company, I prefer releasing code under the GPL instead
>> of the LGPL (or the Apache or the BSD licenses, etc), simply because it
>> prevents competitors f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Murtagh wrote:
> On Saturday 18 August 2007 13:47:32 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> As a core member, if it were up to me, we would ditch GPL all together.
>
> Fortunately IMO, we're not able to do so without a total re-write of the
> softwar
Christopher Murtagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Sure, but I don't really see the much of an advantage in our case to change
> licenses (to v3 or LGPL). At the moment, I don't see the current license
> causing any problems or confusion with anyone. Changing licenses makes people
> leery t
13 matches
Mail list logo
