On 16 January 2011 13:29, Jan Schenkel janschen...@yahoo.com wrote:
It does look like we have have little choice if we want strong protection.
Like you, I'm leaning towards the xGPL licenses, combined with a closed
commercial license.
What worries me about it, is its viral nature in
--- On Sun, 1/16/11, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tv wrote:
On 16 January 2011 13:29, Jan
Schenkel janschen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It does look like we have have little choice if we
want strong protection.
Like you, I'm leaning towards the xGPL licenses,
combined with a closed
On 16 January 2011 15:56, Jan Schenkel janschen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Heh, I'm also curious about these things and want to make sure I take the
right decision - and the only way to find out is by asking questions :-)
So, assuming the Engine and Externals are OK, should we ask RunRev HQ for
an
In general Jan, I share your aims here, and there is I feel a clear
solution, some of which can be addressed by choosing the right license, but
I' still like to get clear about some of the things you are trying to do.
Maybe we can talk on Skype, as I'm doing quite a lot of work in this area at
the
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 12:46 -0800, Jan Schenkel wrote:
--- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tv wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for taking the time to respond - my interest is in
real business
models built around licenses, or other legal innovations -
and not the
politics
Hi Jan _ I don't quite get the exact nature of the private public
distinction you are making - si the source code visible, or are you
referring to a license distinction. From a casual reading it looks a bit
like there is a contradiction in there somewhere - but that most of what you
want can be
Hi Richard - a few minor points / corrections:
On 8 January 2011 00:17, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
As a practical example I would not be able to submit my code
libraries or code I have form other people to the revIgnitor
project, as the license was hand crafted. Ralf
David Bovill wrote:
On 8 January 2011 00:17, Richard Gaskin wrote:
There are scenarios for meaningful sharing that aren't addressed by
GLP-compatible licenses, so while it would be desirable if there were fewer
licenses in the world, the diversity of needs seems to require equally
diverse
Just keeping to the parts:
On 8 January 2011 15:51, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
Had you chosen a Creative Commons license instead of GPL, you would have
been able to share your work just as broadly to as many people as before,
but you would also have had the option of
On 7 January 2011 16:25, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
One of the reasons so many developers like the Creative Commons license is
that there are many flavors to cover a broader range of specific usage
rights than GPL, and certainly X11, affords.
The goals of sharing code
David Bovill wrote:
The main issue for us here is about mixing code projects together
in ways in which the code can be used in clear ways for commercial
and non-commercial projects - removing the uncertainty. Let's just
make sure the code bases can be mixed together. If someone uses a
11 matches
Mail list logo
