IANAL
If and when, Nant chooses to migrate to a different license,
it will have to handle the copyrights of the contributers.
Scott Hernandez and I briefly discussed this on the Draco.Net
list. Scott wanted references, and I haven't responded because
I had to take some time to look them up.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Tom Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL
If and when, Nant chooses to migrate to a different license,
it will have to handle the copyrights of the contributers.
IANAL either, but what you say is 100% the same that I've seen happen
in similar cases for other projects.
At
Yes, this has always concerned me and is something I think we need to remedy
on any future contributions. We need some kind of declaimer/license
agreement that people submitting patches agree to. Then we can be free to
make these kinds of changes without contacting a hundred people, or keeping
Isn't it common to assign copyright to on eor two people or some
registered body ? So for apache projects its the apache foundation, for
mono its Ximian etc
I think at this stage we would have difficulty tracking down all
contributers.
Ian
Scott Hernandez wrote:
Yes, this has always concerned
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but
rather add core enhancements (ie: modifications/enhancements/bug
fixes to the core code) and keep those proprietary.
Yes, there is nothing inside a BSDish license
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the Ant team had the option, now that they have been out there so
long, I wonder if they would choose a sep. license for any reason.
I can only speak for myself, I wouldn't.
Ant has become as successful as it is for several
: Brant Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 3:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would
want NAnt to be available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless there's a slight chance that Apache is going to accept .NET
projects :-)
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm sure that the ASF would not
reject a project just because it used .NET.
The ASF hosts projects written in C, Perl,
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with changing the license to a BSD or
Apache-style license.
As you are responding to a mail of mine, please note that I've just
explained some things about different licenses and what would be
involved
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Mitch Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one question about the wording though. The section
Redistribution and USE (my emphasis) in source and binary
forms. Does this mean that if I build a set of tasks and compile
them into a separate assembly, but don't ship the NAnt
Hi all,
I do not bother about licences much but:
NAnt works well as a GPL'd project. It's effectively a stand-alone
project. Any company wanting to incorporate it could simply bundle
the executable.
You cannot write a NAnt task that uses parts of NAnt's API and
distribute that task
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be
available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for
it. Do we want to allow this?
[2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of
All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO.
- Original Message -
From: Brant Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian MacLean wrote:
Matt,
what are your specific objections to a BSD style licence ? Is it the
greater permissiveness or just that its not GPL ?
My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather
10, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to
be
available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money
for
it. Do we want to allow this?
[2] A commerical
While replying to your note, I noticed the following on our license page:
http://nant.sourceforge.net/license.html
---
NAnt ships with a prebuilt version of NDoc. The NAnt license does not
apply to these components located in the bin folder of the distribution.
NDoc is licensed under the GNU
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
Thanks for the info Stefan,
I tend to agree with you re FSF and associated philosophy
Hi,
* Am 09.10.2003 (18:18) schrieb Gert Driesen:
There sould be no reason we can't get the licencing change in for the
next release - assuming we can deal with any copyright holder issues.
So now we need to make the official dicision as to which licence. I'm
leaning towards BSD - what are
).
- Mitch Denny
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.monash.net
- +61 (414) 610141
-
-Original Message-
From: Gert Driesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:18 AM
To: Ian MacLean; Stefan Bodewig
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
19 matches
Mail list logo