short length and comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft
variation of the MIT license[2].
This is a really bad idea, for reasons already explained by people more
coherent than me. Please don't do it.
You are correct. However, I find the licenses I have examined so far
don't really suit
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
So if you mix your code (under whatever licence you choose, provided
it's compatible with the GPL), together with other peoples' GPL code,
together with other peoples' code under GPL-compatible licences such as
MIT, then...
You can distribute the whole lot AS IF
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
4. Source to bug
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code to a
particular license. That is, I want to allow my code to be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
1. Code is protected by copyright? Yes
2. Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
3. Program that uses
Don Armstrong wrote:
you are specifically restricting the distribution of binaries
beyond what the GPL restricts. Since the combination of code
under your license and the GPL cannot be distributed exactly
under the terms of the GPL, it cannot, as a consequence, be
distributed at all.
I
them to be lengthy. Instead, I admire the MIT license for
its short length and comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft
variation of the MIT license[2].
This is a really bad idea, for reasons already explained by people more
coherent than me. Please don't do it.
This might also
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
4. Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
I tried to modify the
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
These copies and portions shall be distributed along with their
source code.
Is that better?
Perhaps, but it's only
at other by-sa licenses (particularly MPL, CDDL, CPL, EPL)
but found them to be lengthy. Instead, I admire the MIT license for
its short length and comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft
variation of the MIT license[2].
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
(a) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
These copies and portions shall be distributed in source code form.
Your proposed changes seem to rule out the distribution of binaries.
--
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and
comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT
license[2].
I'm not even going to bother reading and reviewing the following
license for the following reasons:
1
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
(a) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
These copies and portions shall be distributed in source code form.
Your proposed changes seem to rule out the
* Suraj N. Kurapati:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
These copies and portions shall be distributed along with their
source code.
Is that better?
Perhaps, but it's only a very, very weak copyleft
Don Armstrong wrote:
You propose to create another copyleft license which is
incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses.
Could you please explain how it is incompatible with popular
copyleft licenses?
From my understanding, even the popular ones (GPL and MPL) are
incompatible
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
You propose to create another copyleft license which is
incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses.
Could you please explain how it is incompatible with popular
copyleft licenses?
Most copyleft licenses are
17 matches
Mail list logo
