On Mon, 7 May 2018, Warren Young wrote:
On May 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
It was merely an idea to possibly avoid some potential ambiguity regarding
public domain, which is a bit of a gray area in many places.
So take the code under the explicit
I am far from an expert in this field myself so I don't know whether
including it in the text section of the binary would be enough, and the
main issue for me is when clients of mine redistribute middleware in
their turn as I mentioned in an earlier post. But either way, Richard
already
On May 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
>
> It was merely an idea to possibly avoid some potential ambiguity regarding
> public domain, which is a bit of a gray area in many places.
So take the code under the explicit license, then.
In my non-expert opinion,
On 2018/05/07 5:53 PM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
It was merely an idea to possibly avoid some potential ambiguity
regarding public domain, which is a bit of a gray area in many places.
Obviously not a requirement for anyone to do anything, it was but a
friendly question.
All good sir, the jibe
It was merely an idea to possibly avoid some potential ambiguity
regarding public domain, which is a bit of a gray area in many places.
Obviously not a requirement for anyone to do anything, it was but a
friendly question.
Kind regards,
Philip
On 5/7/2018 5:44 PM, R Smith wrote:
On
On 2018/05/07 5:33 PM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
Thanks very much for that information, Richard! :)
I don't know if it would make any difference legally, but perhaps this
could be made explicit in the comments?
So it's not enough to get it free... the free giver has to now put some
extra
Thanks very much for that information, Richard! :)
I don't know if it would make any difference legally, but perhaps this
could be made explicit in the comments?
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
Philip
On 5/7/2018 5:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
You are welcomed to use the public-domain version of
You are welcomed to use the public-domain version of the delta
encoding routines found in the SQLite source tree for whatever purpose
you want, without attribution. I am the sole author of that code, and
I am a citizen of a country that allows people to disavow intellectual
property claims, so it
As far as I can judge, you need to include the entire license - or at
least the majority of it - in the documentation (not just a single
line). For an end user product that's fine, but I would rather not have
to ask clients to do so if I am distributing middleware simply because
of a component
On 5/6/18, 11:23 AM, "sqlite-users on behalf of Philip Bennefall"
wrote:
Only the requirement for attribution in binaries. That can be
significant in certain use cases.
One line of text in the documentation
Only the requirement for attribution in binaries. That can be
significant in certain use cases.
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
On 5/6/2018 6:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 5/6/18, Philip Bennefall wrote:
Hi all,
I had a quick question regarding the licensing of the
On 5/6/18, Philip Bennefall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I had a quick question regarding the licensing of the delta compression
> code found in the sqldiff and the RBU extensions for SqLite. I see that
> this code is extracted from Fossil, which is under the BSD license. But
> the
Hi all,
I had a quick question regarding the licensing of the delta compression
code found in the sqldiff and the RBU extensions for SqLite. I see that
this code is extracted from Fossil, which is under the BSD license. But
the header of the source files in the SqLite repository which
13 matches
Mail list logo