On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Richard Poole wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:13:45PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jim Wise wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to point out a couple things that are _not_ wrong with the
> > > current license:
> > >
> > > 1.) With the current license, co
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:13:45PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jim Wise wrote:
>
> > I'd like to point out a couple things that are _not_ wrong with the
> > current license:
> >
> > 1.) With the current license, contributors to the code are not opened
> > to legal l
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Personally, from all the 'legal' issues that FreeBSD has gone through over
> the years, especially recently with the BSDi/FreeBSD merger and the whole
> cryptology merger, I would think they would have been the first to
> adopt/change their BSD licen
Thus spake Jan Wieck
> Right. Someone who doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in
> the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open for
> any non-commercial use should choose it. IMHO the GPL
While I am a proponent of keeping the BSD style license, there is nothin
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
> but you want people to go there of their own free will?
Right. Someone who doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in
the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open for
any
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> > that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> > "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD abou
