> all fun aside, I am serious about APOSSL and believe I have reacted
> in a serious manner to all serious points made.
>
"Serious" means more than simply "not joking." John Cowan pointed out a
major mistake in 1.0, which was totally the opposite of what you
intended. If you were "serious" yo
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 10:40 am, Bernard Nyman wrote:
> 1. What are the export controls to which the above clause refers, and
> where can I find details of them?
The only export controls I am aware of that deal with software pertain to
military grade encryption. I do not believe that Adobe
At 5:52 PM -0500 6/3/02, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 04:59 p, dave sag wrote:
>
>>2. APOSSL is closest to the Apache licence. The Apache licence is
>>insufficient for our needs as our mission is to promote pronoia,
>>and pronoic attitudes in the minds of developers
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 04:59 p, dave sag wrote:
> 2. APOSSL is closest to the Apache licence. The Apache licence is
> insufficient for our needs as our mission is to promote pronoia,
> and pronoic attitudes in the minds of developers who embrace and
> extend our software. the specif
> > nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
>
> He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
Alas, I did. Thanks for catching my mistake.
I am ashamed to be so out classed by you and Rick.
"Is the best response that came to me", is the best response that
came to me.
okay, sorry to be a pedant. this will be the last post on this OT
thread from me.
At 4:27 PM -0500 6/3/02, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
>
>>nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
>
>He made a small mistake: what he mea
Hi OSSL experts,
In my earlier posts to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I failed to
follow protocol and snagged myself on a couple of silly
misunderstandings. For this I apologise.
I have now followed from the list at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html and hope that
this meets with yo
Quoting Matthew C. Weigel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 1. It's still not a dessert topping, though.
"Is not a dessert topping, but is more relevant to this list's
charter than the pronoia licence" is not a dessert topping, but is more
relevant to this list's charter than the pronoia licence.
--
Che
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
> nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
"Will be rejected when approval is asked" will be rejected when approval
is asked.
"Is OK as long as you don't want our stamp o
well this is way off topic but
At 3:04 PM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>I wrote:
>
>> Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
>> for your license.
>>
>> "Your request will be rejected" is your request will be rejected.
>>
nice try but quines make sense. your r
I wrote:
> Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
> for your license.
>
> "Your request will be rejected" is your request will be rejected.
>
I thought of another appropriate response...
"We will refuse when you ask" is we will refuse when you ask.
And another...
"We w
> What does "quine'd" mean?
>
http://www.ship.edu/~deensl/pgss/Day16/goedel.html
(I admit I used the term loosely to describe a statement which
can be read as a self-reference at more than one level that
creats a contradiction.)
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for you
I hope you don't mind me e-mailing you with an off-topic
question on export controls, but I thought that this group would have people who
are able to reply knowledgeably.
I am acting for a UK-based book publisher that is proposing
to publish a book for programmers concerning a particular A
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:43 p, dave sag wrote:
> I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as
> possible and are acting more as a review board than an
> accreditation board.
We are neither. We are a discussion board.
The discussion tends towards, "another!?!?"
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote:
> the basic ideas are as follows:
>
> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>
> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or
> Pronoic Ltd.
This is not a difference. "Neither the name of no
last summer we wrote
some highly pronoic code
now just needs licence
VOTE yes to APOSSL
cheers
dave
At 9:25 AM -0800 6/3/02, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
>> for permission to use the term prono
At 9:48 AM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>>
>> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
>
>That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
that's fine.
> >
>> * the softwa
Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
> for permission to use the term pronoic. in that case your request
> will be denied.
This is just... so Zen. A modest proposal as to form follows:
The software should be
Described as
> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>
> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
>
> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
> for permission to use t
At 5:23 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > in pseudocode
>>
>> clause 4
>>
>> if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) {
>> if (useterm("pronoic")) {
>> noProblem();
>> } else {
>> notInTheSpiritOfIt();
>> }
>> } e
20 matches
Mail list logo
