G'day all.
Karsten, you've done an excellent job with this. There is one point
that I'd like to make which might be worth adding, as it's a common
misconception.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:11:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl
G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would
be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see
any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to
G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:48:44PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
Please clarify or expand on that statement.
The issue under discussion was what incentive would hackers have for
contributing to a product released under a Source Included Software
scheme that was not Open Source such
G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:49AM +, SamBC wrote:
The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of
people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against
those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license
fee.
That _is_
G'day all.
Robert Feldt wrote:
What are the implications of using AFPL versus using GPL?
As another said, the key is to determine what your goals are, however I
suspect that you already knew that. You appear to have implied that
the good will of the community is a possible determining
G'day all.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:55:22PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
If you read the
rest of my posting, you would see that I continued on by saying the people on
this list are exceptions - they do care about the source code. Unfortunately,
we are the extreme minority.
I did read
G'day all.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:51:27PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Economic arguments in support of open source should be
carefully reasoned.
I'm not an economist, I don't pretend to be an economist and I am not
qualified to make economic arguments. I'm merely stating some of the
G'day all.
On Saturday 18 November 2000 04:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're aquainted with how a linker works?
[...]
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:49:11AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
For a few linkers, maybe. For others no.
[...]
If I may ask a meta-question here...
This question has
G'day all.
W. Yip writes:
Then again, how does an advertisement clause such as the above amount to
incompatibility with GPL?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:13:21AM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
The GPL requires people relying on its permissions to grant the same
permissions to others in
G'day all.
I'm co-writing some software that is only really useful in a certain
media industry which doesn't have a history of being very "open" with
their source. If it is used within the industry, it will very likely
be internally modified by media producers and used to produce works,
and the
G'day all.
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 05:53:20PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
There have been some rumors that version 3 of the GNU GPL may require
disclosure of source code in some cases of public performance.
I have also heard these rumours. I believe that this is intended to
deal with
G'day all.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:11:20AM +0100, W. Yip wrote:
Fellas, this seems to be the type of dispute we have been waiting for.
Is it too late to grab a copy of cphack now? Will I or won't I be able
to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if
they _do_
G'day all.
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:45:47AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic Bombs", and does
*not* mean that the author approves of the conduct described herein.
[deletia]
Now who has violated Trent's copyright? Not Alice: she did not modify
G'day all.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote:
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:35:57PM -0500,
G'day all.
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 05:41:42PM -0500, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
I think you missed my point. I'm not saying standards are good or bad,
or that de facto standards are right or wrong. I'm saying that the fact
that people defend standards generated by competition in the market
place
G'day all.
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 12:18:29 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
[no modification allowed in the context of language bindings in standards]
Is Java code that binds such standard interfaces inherently unfree?
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 06:12:45PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
Such a
G'day all.
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 02:17:47AM +0100, Philipp Gühring wrote:
2) Commercial Use for Private Installations (e.g. installing OpenDesk on an
Intranet)
a) Modifications to Covered Code must be released under this license.
The GPL does that.
No it doesn't.
If you install a
G'day all.
Quoting Andrew J Bromage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Even though I find this debate rather off-topic and would love to get
back to licence discussion, I'd be interested in seeing a true line
count of the source for some standard Linux system (say, Debian with
only the compulsory
G'day all.
Disclaimer: I'm not on anyone's side in this debate. I just noticed
quite a few factual errors in this post. I'm also not a Linux
worshipper, and definitely think the Hurd has more promise as far as
operating systems go. Now read on...
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 01:38:35PM -0500,
G'day all.
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 02:08:20PM -0400, Raymond Luk wrote:
Web have a Web application framework which is open source
(www.smartworker.org). It is currently using a BSD-style license but we want
to change to GPL. It is essentially a set of mod_perl classes.
If you're using
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 12:46:16PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
the GNU system.
I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:
GNU's Not Unix/Linux
Since Linux is in fact a re-implementation of Unix, it's
G'day all.
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 07:24:10PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
I would vote for creating a new list, license-review, which is clear on
what it is for, and leave the discussions here, where they seem to match
the list name.
As a matter of interest, was my question (i.e. "here
G'day all.
I thought I'd ask the LPF about the copyright API problem, but the
email address appears not to work (after a week of retrying).
Someone on this list may have an email address which works, since there
must be some overlap between the two interest groups. :-)
The address that I have
23 matches
Mail list logo
