Hi,
Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works
rather than using the following sentence.
"You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files"
Regards.
___
License-discuss mailing
Prashant Shah wrote:
Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works
rather than using the following sentence.
"You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files"
That really depends on the objective you are trying to achie
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM, David Woolley
wrote:
> On the other hand, from a copyright point of view, unless it is clear who
> the copyright owners are, it can be risky to use any piece of software.
>
I am looking towards the copyright point of view.
In majority of cases the version co
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> I am looking towards the copyright point of view.
Still not sure what objective you are trying to serve. By saying the
copyright point of view do you mean you just want to keep track of the
copyright owners? I'm going to assume that is wh
On 30/01/13 06:25, Prashant Shah wrote:
> Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works
> rather than using the following sentence.
>
> "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> that You changed the files"
What do you mean by "handle"?
If yo
Gervase Markham wrote:
If you are writing a license, please don't include a line like this.
Depending on how you interpret it, it's either ineffective (because the
next person can simply remove your notices as part of their change) or a
pain in the behind (as your file fills up with notices whic
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The days of tracking code provenance via in-file comments are gone. And
> they are not missed IMO.
Thats the exact problem with few licenses I know of.
Apache - "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating th
Prashant Shah wrote:
Is there any license out there that puts it in a better way ?
You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with
the existing clauses.
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Still not sure what objective you are trying to serve. By saying the
> copyright point of view do you mean you just want to keep track of the
> copyright owners? I'm going to assume that is what you mean for the
> rest of this email. If
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Woolley
wrote:
>>
>
> You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the
> existing clauses.
For lots of small modifications made by many developers over a long
period of time - it will be really hard to keep that information in a
On 31/01/13 10:20, David Woolley wrote:
> The purpose of such clauses is not to track the provenance, but to
> maintain the purity of the official version, so that forks cannot be
> passed off as approved versions.
This sort of protection is the domain of trademark law, not copyright
law. Attempt
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
> In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
> establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
> original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
> even if many open source developers o
On 31/01/13 10:42, Prashant Shah wrote:
> Main objective is to keep track of the copyright owners / authors of
> modifications that are made in a work that is _redistributed_ in
> source form. So those who receive this new redistributed work know
> what and who made the modifications.
Why do they
Hi,
>> You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the
>> existing clauses.
I get your point. Although there is nothing wrong with it and it works
when the modifications are significant. Its just hard to maintain it
in source files where there are lots of minor modificat
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Unless you collect copyright assignments, you should assume that
> re-licensing _anything_ will be difficult in the future, in-file
> comments or not. Even if you have such comments, you cannot assume they
> are accurate, and you have
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> Why do they _need_ to know that?
>
You have raised a interesting point. I will think about any possible
cases where one might need that :)
Regards.
___
License-discuss mailing list
Licens
Gervase Markham wrote:
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open s
On 31/01/13 12:48, David Woolley wrote:
> Particularly with the GPL, many people don't really understand what they
> are doing when they use it. They may not even have the right to grant
> the licence. One case may be that is is actually work for hire. Another
> real case is that someone used sou
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
>> In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
>> establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
>> original application. Such re-use is fundament
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> I get your point. Although there is nothing wrong with it and it works
> when the modifications are significant. Its just hard to maintain it
> in source files where there are lots of minor modifications. (eg :
> linux kernel)
1) In the cont
Hi,
I didn't mention this previously but Apache license has a clause if
the work is submitted back to inclusion it has to be under the same
license.
"Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by
You to th
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I didn't mention this previously but Apache license has a clause if
> the work is submitted back to inclusion it has to be under the same
> license.
Yes it does. Which is why minor patche
On 01/02/13 07:28, Ben Reser wrote:
> No, the license doesn't matter. If you redistribute a modified file,
> regardless of how you chose to license your modifications you need to
> specify that you modified the file.
Right. And, as you note, this doesn't apply to Apache as they actually
aren't us
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 01/02/13 07:28, Ben Reser wrote:
>> No, the license doesn't matter. If you redistribute a modified file,
>> regardless of how you chose to license your modifications you need to
>> specify that you modified the file.
>
> Right. And, as y
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> @Ben it will take me sometime to go though your response.
To make the example simpler :
1. Widget is a software made by Sally
2. Bob fork the code, makes modification without adding the notice in
the files and host the code.
3. Greg comes a
Hi,
Revised statement :
"You must cause, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, any modified files from the Source form of the Work, to
carry a (appropriate) notice stating that You changed the files,
excluding those files that do not pertain to the Source form of the
Wor
26 matches
Mail list logo
