On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:26, James Cox wrote:
- a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And
whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many
more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of the manual,
and he's not - and
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 21:55, Georg Richter wrote:
On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote:
As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be
- it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness.
There are many other open source
Guys,
has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who
currently hold the license?
Thanks,
james
: James Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 2:37 PM
To: phpdoc
Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
Guys,
has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to
contact those who
currently hold the license?
Thanks,
james
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 07:36, James Cox wrote:
Guys,
has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who
currently hold the license?
I have contacted New Riders regarding the license for the Zend engine
docs. I have yet to hear a response. I will ask again in a
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: phpdoc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact
those who
currently hold the license?
No, I think every copyright
Egon, from ZendAPI LICENSE file:
OPEN PUBLICATION LICENSE
I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS
The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or
in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of
this license are adhered to, and
As far as the license clauses that Rasmus mentioned, i think these are it:
VI. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS
A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is
prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
Substantive modification is defined as a change
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Egon, from ZendAPI LICENSE file:
I have read this myself. No need to post it to the mailing list. You
can read it also in Till and Tobia´s book ´Web Application
Development with PHP 4.0´.
-Egon
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as the license clauses that Rasmus mentioned, i think these
are it:
VI. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS
A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this
document is
prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright
holder.
With that modification it would no longer be the original Open
Publication License. And what about the PEAR documentation?
The original is fine, as it states 'The copyright holder'. So
this need no modification. PEAR doc license is not our
business. It's a different story, and as PEAR docs are
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:26, James Cox wrote:
- a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And
whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many
more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of
the manual,
and he's not - and
read the archives, and no Egon, i don't want to hear from your lawyers.
*g*
- a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And
whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many
Yes. At http://www.php.net/manual/en/copyright.php it says This
From: Mark Kronsbein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- a small number of people have acclaim for the
documentation. And
whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but
by many
Yes. At http://www.php.net/manual/en/copyright.php it says This
manual is Copyright [...] by the PHP
You haven´t understood all terms. The members of this group are
members of the PHP Documentation Group and not only the doc team.
All members (except the editors of other languages) are working
since 1997 for the PHP manual.
Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood this.
I have asked Hartmut to be
Hello Egon,
I have also asked about the meeting in March. On this theme I got
also no response. I know only that this meeting will be held in
March 9 - 10, 2002 in or near Stuttgart.
I gave you response during our last usergroup meeting in January.
The offical invitation for PHP Doc
On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote:
As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be
- it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness.
There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should
probably be
From: Georg Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote:
As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we
want to be
- it's something i personally shy away from due to it's
restrictiveness.
There are many other open source documentation
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 14:03, Egon Schmid wrote:
From: Georg Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where is the problem to change license to OPL or OPL related
license?
Currently the license and politics of their holder(s) really
doesn't improve
the Manual (and the spirit of Open Source).
Have
19 matches
Mail list logo
