Hello,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
>
> I changed the field, in which the contributor choose the license, from
> drop down to
> radio format. I added also a warning text to the description of the field:
> http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1848120/
>
A multi-choices list would be better.
Some ex
Andreas Mantke wrote:
>
> If someone wants to release a file under two or more licenses he had to
> notice this
> in the release notes or had to do two releases with different licenses
> (just only a
> workaround).
>
Well, I’ll simply choose “Other OSI approved”.
Regards,
Olivier R.
--
Vi
Le 2011-07-03 08:45, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Andrea, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 14:13:56 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Andreas Mantke:
Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 19:02:42 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
For usability, I'd prefer not to have a default here. Otherwise, people
may overlook the field an
Le 2011-07-03 11:40, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32 schrieb Marc Paré:
(...)
Suggestion:
Could we order the list in the preference that we would prefer? If some
submitters are unsure of the licence they may then adopt the licence
listed at the top of th
Hi Charles et al
Le 2011-07-03 13:21, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Hello Andreas,
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke
Hi Charles, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 18:24:37 schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
Andreas,
I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow
proprietary
extensions. Could you
Hi Andrea
Le 2011-07-04 02:46, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke
GPL|GPL - GNU General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
LGPL|LGPL - GNU Lesser General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
BSD|BSD Lice
Hi Italo
Le 2011-07-07 05:08, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
We should incentivate licensing of extensions.
I am not sure what this means. Does this mean that "Freeware" authors
would be give a "nudge" (light push) to agree to (as Rainer suggests)
LGPL and CC-BY licenses? And not allow them to list
Le 2011-06-22 14:59, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Marc, Rainer, *,
Am Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2011, 14:55:02 schrieb Marc Paré:
Le 2011-06-22 06:04, Rainer Bielefeld a écrit :
Marc Paré schrieb:
Is this to be run along with Andreas' Extension/Template site[1]?
Hi Marc,
Yes, so it is (planned).
Le 2011-07-07 12:06, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
On 7/7/11 4:41 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I am not sure what this means. Does this mean that "Freeware" authors
would be give a "nudge" (light push) to agree to (as Rainer suggests)
LGPL and CC-BY licenses? And not allow them to list as "Freeware"?
I wou
Hi Olivier, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 12:37:13 schrieb Olivier R.:
> Hello,
>
> Andreas Mantke wrote:
> > I changed the field, in which the contributor choose the license, from
> > drop down to
> > radio format. I added also a warning text to the description of the
> > field: http://andreasmao
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32 schrieb Marc Paré:
(...)
> Suggestion:
>
> Could we order the list in the preference that we would prefer? If some
> submitters are unsure of the licence they may then adopt the licence
> listed at the top of this list. We could then have the least f
Hi Charles, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 18:24:37 schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
> Andreas,
>
> I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow proprietary
> extensions. Could you please disable this option at least for the moment?
it is in the current LibreOffice extension repository
Hello Andreas,
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke
> Hi Charles, *,
>
> Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 18:24:37 schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
> > Andreas,
> >
> > I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow
> proprietary
> > extensions. Could you please disable this option at least for the moment
On 7/3/11 11:01 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I would vote not to reposit (if that is indeed a word) proprietary
extensions and templates etc. Let's keep everything as open as possible.
We can list proprietary extensions perhaps on a separate page. This
would still offer our users a full complement of ex
On 07/03/2011 02:40 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 7/3/11 11:01 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I would vote not to reposit (if that is indeed a word) proprietary
extensions and templates etc. Let's keep everything as open as possible.
We can list proprietary extensions perhaps on a separate page. This
would
On 7/4/11 12:09 AM, C. Olofson wrote:
The reason I say this is that non-free software is not anathema to F/OSS.
Of course not, but I would be very careful because we can alienate FSF
and other TDF supporters.
--
Italo Vignoli
italo.vign...@gmail.com
mobile +39.348.5653829
VoIP +39.02.320621
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> On 7/4/11 12:09 AM, C. Olofson wrote:
>
> The reason I say this is that non-free software is not anathema to F/OSS.
>>
>
> Of course not, but I would be very careful because we can alienate FSF and
> other TDF supporters.
By all means, let'
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> 2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke
> > GPL|GPL - GNU General Public License|
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
> > LGPL|LGPL - GNU Lesser General Public License|
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
> > BSD|BSD License (revised)|http://opensource.org/lic
On 7/4/11 8:46 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
No, I think "Freeware" (besides the typo in the corresponding link) must
be removed, since it goes against the stated policy (or to the closest
thing we have, i.e., RMS's statement on the website).
IANAL, but "freeware" is not a license, while we shoul
Hi Italo, Marc, Andrea, *,
Am Montag, 4. Juli 2011, 11:43:37 schrieb Italo Vignoli:
> On 7/4/11 8:46 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > No, I think "Freeware" (besides the typo in the corresponding link) must
> > be removed, since it goes against the stated policy (or to the closest
> > thing we have,
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
IANAL, but "freeware" is not a license, while we should only list
extensions with a free software license. People using a proprietary
license are - of course - free to use such a license, but we cannot
neither suggest nor promote their extensions on TDF web sites.
Hello,
On 7/4/11 8:07 PM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
I am not happy with a solution excluding providers of Freeware / Public
domain. It's not our strategy to contribute freeware, but if a
contributer wants to share his creation without licensing, but as Public
Domian, we should not affront him.
We shoul
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
We should incentivate licensing of extensions.
Full ACK, if LGPL and CC-BY are included.
Kind regards
Rainer
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archiv
On 7/7/11 4:41 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I am not sure what this means. Does this mean that "Freeware" authors
would be give a "nudge" (light push) to agree to (as Rainer suggests)
LGPL and CC-BY licenses? And not allow them to list as "Freeware"?
I would prefer something more than a nudge. I would
Hi Marc, *,
Am Donnerstag, 7. Juli 2011, 16:54:29 schrieb Marc Paré:
> Le 2011-06-22 14:59, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
> > Hi Marc, Rainer, *,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2011, 14:55:02 schrieb Marc Paré:
> >> Le 2011-06-22 06:04, Rainer Bielefeld a écrit :
> >>> Marc Paré schrieb:
> Is this
Hi,
and I believe I have been a little careless using term "freeware". I do
not want a platform for "free of charges" software, but for "really
free" software, what means with "free software license".
Rainer
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Posting
On 7/8/11 7:57 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
and I believe I have been a little careless using term "freeware". I do
not want a platform for "free of charges" software, but for "really
free" software, what means with "free software license".
Freeware is usually proprietary but free of charge, an
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
Freeware is usually proprietary but free of charge, and belongs to the
same category of shareware (in relations with the software license, as
it usually adopts an EULA similar to MS Office or IBM Symphony).
So it is, and that's nothing we can accept on the repository.
On 07/08/2011 12:50 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
Freeware is usually proprietary but free of charge, and belongs to the
same category of shareware (in relations with the software license, as
it usually adopts an EULA similar to MS Office or IBM Symphony).
So it is, and
Andreas,
I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow proprietary
extensions. Could you please disable this option at least for the moment?
Thank you,
Charles.
Le 3 juil. 2011, 5:41 PM, "Andreas Mantke" a écrit :
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32 schrieb Marc P
30 matches
Mail list logo
