It is common practice to put licensing/copyright info at beginning of
files, but that info is missing on few of the files I looked at in
pyramid/ directory. Is it not an issue.
This question was prompted by my filing
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/pull/939, wondering if it's
necessary at all to
Why choose a non-commercial license[1]? This has the disadvantage of
disallowing, for example, Debian to distribute it[2], which would be
nice.
[1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
[2]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640780.
--
You received this message becaus
I reckon a reference to the copyright information would be
sufficient, but the info itself would be too much.
--steve
On 3/22/13 at 9:59 PM, tshep...@gmail.com (Tshepang Lekhonkhobe) pronounced:
It is common practice to put licensing/copyright info at beginning of
files, but that info is mis
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 22:07 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Why choose a non-commercial license[1]? This has the disadvantage of
> disallowing, for example, Debian to distribute it[2], which would be
> nice.
>
> [1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
> [2]: http://bugs.debian.
On 3/22/13 at 4:32 PM, chr...@plope.com (Chris McDonough) pronounced:
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 22:07 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Why choose a non-commercial license[1]? This has the disadvantage of
disallowing, for example, Debian to distribute it[2], which would be
nice.
[1]: http://creat
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 22:07 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> Why choose a non-commercial license[1]? This has the disadvantage of
>> disallowing, for example, Debian to distribute it[2], which would be
>> nice.
>>
>> [1]: http://creat
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Steve Piercy
wrote:
> On 3/22/13 at 4:32 PM, chr...@plope.com (Chris McDonough) pronounced:
>
>
>> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 22:07 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>>
>>> Why choose a non-commercial license[1]? This has the disadvantage of
>>> disallowing, for exam
I'd suggest these 2 strategies:
1. Dual-License the Docs as a choice between Current or the Perl
Artistic license. The Artistic license is OSI & Debian approved, but
neuters most commercial activities ( docs can be on retail CDs , but
books would fall under a "reasonable copying fee" ).
2. split
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Jonathan Vanasco
wrote:
> I'd suggest these 2 strategies:
>
> 1. Dual-License the Docs as a choice between Current or the Perl
> Artistic license. The Artistic license is OSI & Debian approved, but
> neuters most commercial activities ( docs can be on retail CDs
