Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com):
> Hi,
'Lo.
> http://unlicense.org/
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>
> What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ?
CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the
event that its primary intent r
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:44:02PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Zooko,
>
> It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions
> for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to
> Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3.
>
> I believe this is indeed possible, but requir
John Cowan wrote at 13:27 (EDT) on Sunday:
> == licensing content ends here, the rest is about civil behavior ==
I've already written to Larry privately to this point, but given that
this subset of the conversation has raged on, I'd like to echo John's
point: I think many comments on this thread w
Hello license-discuss,
On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements
made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the
assertion that GPLv3 "restricts use in hardware that forbids software
alterations").
Prashant Shah scripsit:
> CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how
> patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified.
The presence of the patent verbs "use" and "sell" and the use of "uncumbered"
suggest that there is a patent license, but no more than
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013, at 02:25 PM, Eben Moglen wrote:
> You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
Dr. Moglen,
I'd like to highlight Cowan's advice since I've found it very helpful
(and completely un-obvious) in my own life:
"Civil apologies require confession, contrition, and
pr
Speaking for myself I find the CC mechanism and license chooser quite nice
and not problematic at all for the vast majority of use cases.
On 8/17/13 9:38 PM, "Richard Fontana" wrote:
>
>Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
>license chooser or license explanation site t
On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual
license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but
it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost
always be) by political or cultural bias.
Th
The problem/issue is that it is difficult to address licenses
without, imo at least, the "politics" of said license leaking
in.
It is difficult to write things without personal biases filtering
out, something which happens with me fwiw.
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> Bra
Hi,
http://unlicense.org/
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ?
CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how
patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified.
CC0 :
*4. Limitations a
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
> license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was
> more problematic than useful. Lin
Richard Fontana wrote at 08:20 (EDT):
> Not with an exception in the GPLv2 exception sense, and not without
> the result being (A)GPLv3-incompatible, since under TGPPL each
> downstream distributor appears to be required to give the grace
> period.
ISTR that Zooko was willing to drop that requirem
12 matches
Mail list logo
