On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the Autocrat
Test
or the Dictator Test? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
holder
does not get to make up his or her own laws?
The Ideocrat Test? Or perhaps Egocrat?
so, the # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK and # END LICENSE BLOCK lines are there
_solely_ to allow an automated tagging tool to go through and tag
things and not intended as an ammendment to the GPL.
If we changed it to # {BEGIN|END} BPS-TAGGED BLOCK, would that satisfy
the objection?
On Thu, Jul 01,
On Jun 29, 2004, at 18:22, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Sony have given a stream of conflicting messages about the playstation
platforms.
More importantly, when they tried it against Connectix(sp?), they lost.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:56:20AM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
so, the # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK and # END LICENSE BLOCK lines are there
_solely_ to allow an automated tagging tool to go through and tag
things and not intended as an ammendment to the GPL.
If we changed it to # {BEGIN|END}
Each way you interpret it, it seems to miss something. Really, I agree
with Andrew Suffield again (warning: End of World ahead). This is
clumsy wording and I would be unhappy if it got into debian. I wish
you luck persuading the author, but I think gutting/replacing the JSRS
may be the
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:40, Joe Moore wrote:
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the Autocrat
Test
or the Dictator Test? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
holder
does not get to make up his or her
Remco Seesink wrote:
Great news, The author of JSRS agreed to a license change. I want to get it
right now the first try, so I thought I better check here first.
Good idea.
How about this version where I removed the offending line?
BEGIN JSRS LICENSE
No Nonsense Copyright and License for
On 2004-07-01 03:16:10 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] You might find the last two weeks of MPL Contract discussion
useful.
...or not. I'm afraid I don't particularly want to learn huge detail
about foreign law systems right now, as I have enough trouble trying
Why not just point him at the smallest possible BSD-style license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list
Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
it's not free, so I don't have to send one)
True, but a license clause
On Jun 29, 2004, at 15:05, Lex Spoon wrote:
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
it
says you must email the author before distributing a modified version,
provided that sending one email is free for you. This is certainly
annoying, but it's very minor and it
On Jul 1, 2004, at 03:12, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code
On Jul 1, 2004, at 14:48, Remco Seesink wrote:
The only thing you can't do is to restrict anyone else from using it
however
they see fit. You may not change the rules I have set on how it can
be used.
What exactly is this trying to require? I can see several things:
1) You may not
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical
14 matches
Mail list logo
