Regarding 'open' (no pun intended) question to RMS about compatibility of
AFL to GPL -
I visited with Richard last evening; he's in Austin for SXSW Interactive.
I conveyed this question to him. Any of you who have carried on a
conversation
with Richard can understand the constrained, highly-quali
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:41:23PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
>
> Why do you feel that there is a need for a non-template BSD-like
> license? Is there a problem with the current templatized licenses I am
> not aware of?
I don't see a problem, as such, but I prefer the non-template approach
--
TED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: A BSD-like license that isn't template-based
: Dave H scripsit:
:
: > I was wondering if there are any BSD-style licenses which are /not/
: > template-based. The closest I've seen is Larry Rosen&#
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 01:10 pm, Dave H wrote:
> Finally, I've attempted to draft a new license, below, based as much
> as possible on the BSD license. It is also slightly influenced by
> the AFL. (Note: IANAL.) I'd appreciate any constructive thoughts on
> how good or bad it is compared to a
Dave H scripsit:
> I was wondering if there are any BSD-style licenses which are /not/
> template-based. The closest I've seen is Larry Rosen's Academic Free
> License; however the "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause,
> whilst laudable, gives it more "teeth" than the BSD license; also,
Hi,
Looking at the various "disclaimer"-style licenses available (BSD, MIT
X11 license, etc.) I notice they tend to be template-based; i.e. each
individually copyrighted work gets it's own separate license in which
the copyright statement is placed. In contrast, the GPL/MPL/etc.
reference the lic
6 matches
Mail list logo
