Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> HTML provides some desirable features:
Add the fact that it autoconverts very nicely to plaintext. ;->
$ grep html .mailcap
text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -dump -force_html '%s'; copiousoutput;
description=HTML Text; nametemplate=%s.html
$
--
Cheers,
Arguing the merit of plain text vs. HTML is just Lilliput v. Blefuscu.
Provide both, for different reasons.
Plain-text is a better source for cut-and-paste operations.
In general plain text divides the actual license text from any attached
commentary, making it clear which is which.
There is
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Lawrence Rosen" writes:
>>> Have we (OSI) ever seriously adding putting plain text versions of
>>> licenses (where available) to the OSI website?
>>
>>While this makes no difference to the legal implications of a license,
>>converting to plain
On 09/05/2012 08:19 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
My understanding (I am not a lawyer) is that copyright only applies to
creative works -- specifically, to works resulting from human
creativity, or to the portion of a work that results from human
creativity. This is why, for example, the information in
forget color writes:
>I'm a visual artist and composer. Code is my medium. I'm interested in
>releasing some of my code as open source, but don't quite understand
>the licensing and copyright relationships between an open source
>codebase and the artworks that the code may produce.
>
>There are tw
"Lawrence Rosen" writes:
>> Have we (OSI) ever seriously adding putting plain text versions of
>> licenses (where available) to the OSI website?
>
>While this makes no difference to the legal implications of a license,
>converting to plain text destroys information useful for human beings to
>com
6 matches
Mail list logo
