On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> > > Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
> > >
> > > > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> > > > approved, as
Karsten M. Self writes:
> on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
> >
> > > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> > > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
> >
> > It should
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> What would be an example? The popular "oops we didn't mean to include
> old revisions that make disparaging remarks" kind of markup? I'd think
> that it's what prints out that counts.
Right, that's my point. CR and LF are a form of markup which, when
properly ren
on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
>
> > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
>
> It should be noted for the record that such licenses ar
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:08:37PM -0400, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
> >
>
> When the jurisdictions are different, they are not compatible
> with each other either. That seems like a problem.
I believe that bot
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Matthew C. Weigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
>
> It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
>
When the juris
Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
> My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
Specified jurisdictions are extremely common, and imo do not conflict
with the intent of this contract. They
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and
> > would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not
> > HTML-tagged content.
>
> If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the
on Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 08:58:30AM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and would
> > strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not HTML-tagged
> > content.
>
> If you got a Word
Karsten M. Self writes:
> I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and would
> strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not HTML-tagged
> content.
If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the markup
isn't a legal part of the license?
> With the
on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:24:15PM -0700, Brian DeSpain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Open source or not?
> > -russ
> >
> > Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The X.Net, Inc. License
> > >
&g
This is nearly identical to the Apache license.
So My guess is free.
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Open source or not?
> -russ
>
> Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The X.Net, Inc. License
> >
> >
> >
> > Copyright (c)
Open source or not?
-russ
Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The X.Net, Inc. License
>
>
>
> Copyright (c) 2000-2001 X.Net, Inc. Lafayette, California, USA
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
> o
14 matches
Mail list logo
