On 4/1/15, 5:44 PM, "Rick Moen" wrote:
>Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
>
>> It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of
>> commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial
>> exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and instead exploit
Rick Moen:
> A broader point: The quest for the shortest possible licence (of
> whatever category) strikes me as solving the wrong problem.
You wouldn't write your own libc these days: you'd leave it to experts.
The consequences for getting basic security and functionality code wrong
there woul
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:58 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Software has special problems that CC's classes of licences don't need
> to address. I have no problem reverse-engineering the construction of a
> novel to determine how to write my own. (There cannot be a proprietary
> secret sauce, no unava
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 18:13 +, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz wrote:
> The Simple Public License (SimPL) is a lawyer-written, OSI-approved, plain
> language and relatively short copyleft license. It's available on the OSI
> website.
Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't seen that one before, and I
On Apr 1, 2015 4:04 AM, "Tim Makarios" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios wrote:
> Really? Then do the BSD and ISC licences also violate the OSD and FSD,
> because they don't require the source code of derivative works to be
> made available?
>
But they do make the sourc
5 matches
Mail list logo
