How about this copyleft clause for 2BSDL or 3BSDL (that is, add this clause
into the existing clauses of 2BSDL or 3BSDL to make it copyleft) with a
rewritten clause 2 and a new clause 3 (3BSDL’s clause 3 get bumped to clause 4
in this case)
2. Redistributions in binary form of this work or any
Tim Makarios scripsit:
50 words. It doesn't require making the source code available, but
recipients of binaries will always be free to make derivative works by
reverse engineering the binaries. It does make itself incompatible with
other copyleft licences, though, which seems difficult to
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand
and use as the creative commons ones.
Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were
simple.
Very small benefit, large downside as shown by
Hmm… Would OSI itself be such an organisation?
Since my personal preference of BSDL, I would like to see people writing
BSDL-like clauses for different purposes (like my proposed BSDL-like copyleft
clause) and a developer can just cherry-pick license features they want by
choosing individual
I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my “simple
English BSD equivalent” thread as there are just too many politics and
complexities involved in those licenses and engineers, being
not-so-professional in law, gets confused easily.
I still remembered my days
On 3/31/15, 1:59 PM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote:
I have a gut feeling that this thread have somewhat common point as my
³simple English BSD equivalent² thread as there are just too many
politics and complexities involved in those licenses and engineers, being
not-so-professional in law,
On 3/30/15, 10:00 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
It's an object lesson in why coders should not attempt to draft what are
often on this mailing list termed 'crayon licences'.
A broader point: The quest for the shortest possible licence (of
whatever category) strikes me as solving the
please remove or do not e mail daunevin, he is no longer with us.
On 30-Mar-15, at 10:54 AM, Daunevin Janz wrote:
On 30-Mar-15, at 1:40 AM, Tim Makarios wrote:
I posted this question to the contact form at opensource.org,
which sent
me an automated response suggesting (among other things)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't require making the source code available, but
recipients of binaries will always be free to make derivative works by
reverse engineering the binaries.
That seems like a non-starter to me. It violates both the OSD
9 matches
Mail list logo
