> > nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
>
> He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
Alas, I did. Thanks for catching my mistake.
I am ashamed to be so out classed by you and Rick.
"Is the best response that came to me", is the best response that
came to me.
okay, sorry to be a pedant. this will be the last post on this OT
thread from me.
At 4:27 PM -0500 6/3/02, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
>
>>nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
>
>He made a small mistake: what he mea
Quoting Matthew C. Weigel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 1. It's still not a dessert topping, though.
"Is not a dessert topping, but is more relevant to this list's
charter than the pronoia licence" is not a dessert topping, but is more
relevant to this list's charter than the pronoia licence.
--
Che
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
> nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
"Will be rejected when approval is asked" will be rejected when approval
is asked.
"Is OK as long as you don't want our stamp o
well this is way off topic but
At 3:04 PM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>I wrote:
>
>> Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
>> for your license.
>>
>> "Your request will be rejected" is your request will be rejected.
>>
nice try but quines make sense. your r
I wrote:
> Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
> for your license.
>
> "Your request will be rejected" is your request will be rejected.
>
I thought of another appropriate response...
"We will refuse when you ask" is we will refuse when you ask.
And another...
"We w
> What does "quine'd" mean?
>
http://www.ship.edu/~deensl/pgss/Day16/goedel.html
(I admit I used the term loosely to describe a statement which
can be read as a self-reference at more than one level that
creats a contradiction.)
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for you
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:43 p, dave sag wrote:
> I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as
> possible and are acting more as a review board than an
> accreditation board.
We are neither. We are a discussion board.
The discussion tends towards, "another!?!?"
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote:
> the basic ideas are as follows:
>
> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>
> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or
> Pronoic Ltd.
This is not a difference. "Neither the name of no
last summer we wrote
some highly pronoic code
now just needs licence
VOTE yes to APOSSL
cheers
dave
At 9:25 AM -0800 6/3/02, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
>> for permission to use the term prono
At 9:48 AM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>>
>> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
>
>That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
that's fine.
> >
>> * the softwa
Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
> for permission to use the term pronoic. in that case your request
> will be denied.
This is just... so Zen. A modest proposal as to form follows:
The software should be
Described as
> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>
> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
>
> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
> for permission to use t
At 5:23 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > in pseudocode
>>
>> clause 4
>>
>> if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) {
>> if (useterm("pronoic")) {
>> noProblem();
>> } else {
>> notInTheSpiritOfIt();
>> }
>> } e
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Look, if you have no permission to use the term "pronoic"
> then you may not legally use it.
Not so. Clause 5 says there is no right to use the term
*in the name of the derivative work* without permission.
Clause 4 encourages its use, with or without permissio
Quoting Forrest J. Cavalier III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Be careful. I am beginning to think that your interest is
> playing a game with license discuss, and that you have no
> interest in OSI approval.
I smell a bit of good-natured Robert Anton Wilson-style "guerilla
ontology" being sprung on
> in pseudocode
>
> clause 4
>
> if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) {
> if (useterm("pronoic")) {
> noProblem();
> } else {
> notInTheSpiritOfIt();
> }
> } else {
> noProblem();
> }
Look, if you have no permission to use t
At 2:36 PM -0300 5/3/02, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
>I agree with your interpretation.
>The text states clearly that you MUST use it, unless you get permission
>for not using it.
this clause has been revised to
* 4. The term pronoic should be used to endorse and promote products derived
*fro
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 12:29:01PM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should you
> > never obtain written permission, you never need endorse anything.
> 4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
> prom
in pseudocode
clause 4
if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) {
if (useterm("pronoic")) {
noProblem();
} else {
notInTheSpiritOfIt();
}
} else {
noProblem();
}
and clause 5.
if
(haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic.org")||haveN
dave sag wrote:
> * 4. The term pronoic should be used to endorse and promote products
> derived
> *from this software before obtaining written permission. For written
> *permission, you must contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nope, still won't fly: it still says that the names should (rathe
At 2:57 PM -0500 5/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>dave sag wrote:
>
>>># 4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
>>># promote products derived from this software before obtaining
>>># written permission.
>
>
>>No. There is no requirement to use the term pronoic unless yo
dave sag wrote:
>> # 4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
>> # promote products derived from this software before obtaining
>> # written permission.
> No. There is no requirement to use the term pronoic unless you get
> written permission to do so.
For Ghu
At 2:39 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > the key here is the qualifying 'before obtaining written permission'.
>> should you NEVER obtain written permission you never need endorse
>> anything.
>
>Huh?
>
>How does a court of law distinguish someone who will never
>obtain permi
At 1:47 PM -0500 5/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>dave sag wrote:
>
>>Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should
>>you never obtain written permission, you never need endorse
>>anything.
>
>
># 4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
># promote pro
> the key here is the qualifying 'before obtaining written permission'.
> should you NEVER obtain written permission you never need endorse
> anything.
Huh?
How does a court of law distinguish someone who will never
obtain permission from someone who has not yet decided
to obtain permission?
dave sag wrote:
> Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should you
> never obtain written permission, you never need endorse anything.
# 4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
# promote products derived from this software before obtaining
#
At 12:37 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > pronoic is a word (albeit a made up word) meaning the opposite of
>> paranoic. it is also a name, but so is apple, and netscape and
>> apache. they can use their name in their own licences.
>>
>>
>
>Undefined words no place in legal
the key here is the qualifying 'before obtaining written permission'.
should you NEVER obtain written permission you never need endorse
anything. if this is not clear from the wording then i am happy to
ammend the clause for clarity.
cheers
dave
At 12:29 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J Cavalier
> pronoic is a word (albeit a made up word) meaning the opposite of
> paranoic. it is also a name, but so is apple, and netscape and
> apache. they can use their name in their own licences.
>
>
Undefined words no place in legal documents.
If a made up word appears, or is offset in "" it
dave sag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part
> Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should you
> never obtain written permission, you never need endorse anything.
>
4. The names "Pronoic", or "pronoic.org" must be used to endorse and
promote products derived from this
Hi Forrest,
I think you have missed the finer points of the APOSSL. comments inline below.
At 11:24 AM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
>This is not a Free software license because clause 4 requires
>promotion of derivatives. I should be free to create a derivative
>and keep it t
[snip]
>
> We seek to spread our ideas, meme like, through both non-commercial
> and commercial channels. We do not seek to restrict use of our
> software by anyone, and for the most part our licence is bog-standard
> OSS stuff, but we do have some weird demands on them should they do;
> lik
Hi people,
I have read through the archives of this list looking for any sort of
formal approval process for our licence and it seems to me that
simply posting a request to this list is enough.
I wish to release some of our software from our private CVS server to
sourceforge, but we wish to r
34 matches
Mail list logo
