On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
> I think section 2 has a lot to say about this. Its wording
> makes no - and allows no - distinction between programs and
> non-programs. However you may aggregate works together.
> So even though documentation and your program are distributed
> together,
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:43:13PM -0800, Mitchell Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<...>
> >> Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
> >> seperate works. There is no licensing compatibility requirement betwe
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
> At work, I've tried to explain the matter by saying it's best to think
> of a composite work as not _having_ a licence, per se: The individual
> modules bear licences. The resulting composite, then, either is or is not
> legally distributable, depending
Karsten Self wrote:
>
>on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:26:20PM -0500, John Cowan
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>The way I read 3(c), the GNU GPL refers to the program, but doesn't
>preclude
>its inclusion into a larger, ***nonprogram*** work:
[...]
I think section 2
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:26:20PM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
> > seperate works. There is no licensing compatibility requirement between
> > the docs and the code. Even whe
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:36:53PM -0800, Mitchell Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >> Hey folks,
> >>
> >> A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license t
At 1:01 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
>> avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
>> deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
>> specific language that doesn't
begin John Cowan quotation:
> The term "relicense" should be avoided, as it leads to wifty thinking.
> No one but the copyright holder can "relicense" anything, in the
> sense of changing the license.
>
> You can create a *derivative* work containing BSD parts and GPL parts,
> and license the wh
On Tuesday 28 November 2000 02:26 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> If the software were GPL and the doco BSD, then if anyone rewrote the
> doco for greater clarity or some such, then he would be able to make
> the improved version proprietary and prevent it from being distributed
> with current or future
We're also trying to figure out a documentation license for the Mozilla
Project. One reason we've talked about using the same license for
documentation and code is that it can be difficult to separate the two.
For example, the Help documentation is included in electronic format as
part of th
The MPL is due for a revision before long. I'd like to make the revised
version as neutral as possible for just this reason.
mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> A quick question. If you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, it is specific to documentation, so long as the documentation
> doesn't incorporate code from the project.
My point was that it is convenient for documentation and software to
be under the same license, so that the same set of persons can make
revisions to both in
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
> avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
> deal with the fact that many of the open source license
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:43:59PM -0500, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In the general case, if the documentation is to be freely
> > redistributable to a large license, a license which allows distribution
> > under terms at least as liberal as the softwar
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
specific language that doesn't make sense if used by any product
other than what the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the general case, if the documentation is to be freely
> redistributable to a large license, a license which allows distribution
> under terms at least as liberal as the software license should be
> sufficient.
Indeed, but that is a general point not specific to doc
16 matches
Mail list logo