On May 10, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> ... the lawyers (who all used PCs of course).
So there IS justice in this world!
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Come to WOWODC this July for unparalleled WO learning opportunities and real
peer to peer problem
Netstruxr was a dot-com - the start of WOnder was to opensource our codebase
and frameworks to basically save the code because the company was doomed.
That was like, ten years ago now -
On May 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> That is basically a BSD license which is good. Who is N
That is basically a BSD license which is good. Who is NetStruxr? There is
no other reference to that group anywhere else I could find. It appears to
be a group that no longer exists. There should be a license at the top
level of the source tree, this implies that the license covers the entire
code
Greetings Dov,
>From what I am told, either a standards body, company, or community can serve
>in that regards. There are some ideas to engage any of those kinds of groups
>to ensure that some WO components may be protected.
The lawyers will for certain have a field day.
Later,
Dan Beatty, AB
Let me check with our lawyer. I suspect that the license is still valid though
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2011, at 8:58 PM, "Paul Hoadley" wrote:
> On 10/05/2011, at 9:44 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>
>> I assume ERExtensions/Documentation/LICENSE.NPL does... so what about NPL
>> has this aud
On 10/05/2011, at 9:44 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> I assume ERExtensions/Documentation/LICENSE.NPL does... so what about NPL has
> this audit deemed offensive?
(I am not a lawyer.) Does a software license like this continue to hold force
in the absence of the licensor? That is, given that NetS
well .. it's not true, for one. there really is no such thing as "the license
for wonder." different parts are under different licenses. I've tried to make
the core frameworks clean of any GPL reps, and I think it's a good idea to get
rid of all of them if we can. To be on the up-and-up, we real
I assume ERExtensions/Documentation/LICENSE.NPL does... so what about NPL has
this audit deemed offensive?
Ramsey
On May 9, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> Those acknowledgements are required if you are using some types of open
> source licenses like LGPL. Those do not constitute prop
Those acknowledgements are required if you are using some types of open source
licenses like LGPL. Those do not constitute proper licensing for project wonder
Dov Rosenberg
On May 9, 2011, at 6:14 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> Just havi
On May 9, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> Just having gone thru an extensive software audit of all of the third party
> licensing that our company uses (including WebObjects and Project Wonder
> among a zillion other things). I would like to propose that Project Wonder
> adopt a more
On May 9, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> Just having gone thru an extensive software audit of all of the third party
> licensing that our company uses (including WebObjects and Project Wonder
> among a zillion other things).
No one's idea of a good time.
> I would like to propose t
Just having gone thru an extensive software audit of all of the third party
licensing that our company uses (including WebObjects and Project Wonder among
a zillion other things). I would like to propose that Project Wonder adopt a
more consistent license for the code base. The best licenses for
12 matches
Mail list logo
