Chad Whitacre said:
My personal favorite non-copyleft license is the beer-ware license, as
used by, e.g., Poul-Henning Kamp:
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/ [note: find 'Beerware']
That is a beautiful license. I'm for anything that gets me a beer or two.
Clay Dowling
Who may be
Chad Whitacre wrote:
Dear All,
Chad,
Thank you very much for your research into this.
It is much appreciated. I have a TCL script which displays an SQLite
file and allows such things as modify table and storing snippets of TCL
code in the db file and executing them from there. I had
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:44PM -0700, Gerry Snyder wrote:
Does anyone see a problem with releasing code under the user's option of
BSD or GPL? I much prefer the latter, so that added work (if
Then you might as well just release it as BSD only in order to reduce
confusion, and encourage
Chad Whitacre wrote:
I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?
It comes down to goals. If your goal is to give other people code to
use,
I think the gist was that the software couldn't have a disclaimer
of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone could sue the
author if something went wrong when using it. I don't know how
true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in the answer.
I believe
On 5/25/2005 at 11:36 Darren Duncan wrote:
Moreover, in a discussion about open source software licenses I was
part of a few weeks ago, it was brought up that making a work public
domain was a very bad thing to do, because it opened up the author to
a whole bunch of legal liability that they
At 9:57 PM +0200 5/25/05, Ulrik Petersen wrote:
Lawrence Rosen has been the general counsel for the Open Source
Initiative, and he specializes in technology and computer law
according to his website:
snip
Thanks for all the responses.
And some of them such as the above show that I didn't
