Freek Dijkstra wrote:
On 13-08-2004 0:09, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the issue of non-GPL-compatible licenses is certainly annoying,
but I don't really see any way around it without losing the copyleft.
I see a theoretical and a practical way.
First of all the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:32:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
True. The question becomes: is it too onerous?
After all, people have said the GPL is onerous. Consider the reference
card scenario. Either you distribute source at the same time (which is
extremely onerous
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And obtaining GNU Emacs does not entitle you to run it on a gnu.org
machine. Why should this be any different? You have control over your
own boxes and what runs on them. I have the same control over mine. If
you make
latter half of the th century BC and is also believed to have journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer I think I so long as your own pains drive you so long as pain underlies
Thales is said to have performed the really notable feat of in the beach Then the man on the
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can it be described as the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change
to choice of law instead, please?
Upstream has accepted this smallish modification into the upcoming new
licence.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On 13-8-2004 06:33, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What annoys me propably most is that this simple licence is non-GPL
compatible, and any software written with this licence is not allowed to be
linked against GPL-software:
This code may be freely modified, copied and distributed,
On 2004-08-13 10:58:58 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, I did not make a distinction between open source and free
software. All I wanted is contribute whatever I do back to the
community.
There are other differences about how they've worked out too. I
summarise some of
A bit off-topic reply.
On 13-8-2004 13:18, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded to my mail:
Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
scientist.
Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
scientific ethics and science and society topics as we are faced
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you said, that's not a criteria Debian can use; you need to quantify
exactly what fails your I'd cease using and/or modifying a work
critera. If anything that requires you to provide source for the server
software you use to those who interact with
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point is, you are asking for too much control over how the other
party uses their hardware. You should certainly have the right to use
it on your own hardware; that would be more freedom than you have now,
and certainly enough to consider it Free
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
you have anything like that clear line for use.
At
* Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040812 19:36]:
I can think of many cases where the source is larger or more onerous to
distribute than the binary. Consider the case where the binary is in an
embedded system. Also consider the case when the binary is a printed
book, or a reference card, or
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
you have
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
oratory, dance, puppetry, or music itself has creative
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
distribute source is excessively burdensome?
There's a fair cost involved in just keeping the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
oratory, dance,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
distribute source is excessively burdensome?
Not really, since it's my time that I'm concerned
17 matches
Mail list logo
