On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 17:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem
domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for
another, one that I think is
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
[Branden]
Why not say something like:
If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its
modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to
users of the work.?
IMO, this is non-free without the
Title: assoagenti
Anno-III- n° 7
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the
PHPNuke thread.
I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even
suggestion, but my memory is imperfect) on what such a wording should be.
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 12:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the
PHPNuke thread.
I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even
suggestion,
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
run.
Perhaps
Branden Robinson writes:
Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong
way.
I'm not too happy about it either, but ...
The nice(?) thing about legal language is that you can use broad
terms to say what you mean, and as long as your meaning is clear and
Jeff Licquia writes:
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
run.
This would be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, please, write licenses for the audience at (3).
Isn't the GPL essentially a counterexample? It was written with legal
counsel, and many people have criticised it for it complexity. It has
also been an effective license that doesn't have any
9 matches
Mail list logo