Le Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 07:35:02PM +0200, Victor Nitu a écrit :
Is the GNU GPL a decent enough license to be applied to our
contributors' work? Or any CC variant? What shall I answer to their
question, as a community website co-founder?
Dear Victor,
if you and the other contributors are not
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 06:10 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works
will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to
take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore
the way the Translation Project
Hello!
I see there's (at last) some activity on bug #388141 [1].
I am happy to see that, but I personally think it's going in a slightly
wrong direction... :-(
First of all, a brief summary of bug #238245 [2] and of bug #388141 [1]
(which started as a clone of #238245 [2]), for debian-legal
hello debian-legal,
as a part of my intent to package openscad (#583476), i want to ask you
for help with the package's licensing.
as outlined in the itp, the package is gpl-2+ itself and depends heavily
on libcgal, which is qpl and thus in non-free, which sends openscad to
contrib. openscad has
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:50:17 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's
not [5].
As a side point: the above claim of yours is no longer true, see
#632175. The web
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206),
include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future
and (then) past contributors.
I think this is the wrong approach.
The Debian Project does
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:22:38 +0100 chrysn wrote:
hello debian-legal,
Hello chrysn!
as a part of my intent to package openscad (#583476), i want to ask you
for help with the package's licensing.
Thanks for trying hard to solve this issue in the best possible way.
as outlined in the itp,
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:15:03 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right
to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket
permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will
see fit, now
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
unknown terms.
I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people
opposing
hello,
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:22:39PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Have you tried to persuade libcgal copyright holder(s) to re-license
libcgal under the GNU GPL v2 or later, or under the GNU LGPL v2.1, or,
at least, to dual-license it under the QPL and one GPLv2-compatible
license?
i've
Le Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting
copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions
get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about
software
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the
people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one
of them.
I personally don't really see the need for copyright assignments,
unless we foresee the need to enforce
Hi,
I hope this is the right place to ask for a advice.
I have become DD in last days, in all my NM process, and in all my debian
work I used only my first and last name, my doubt is related to my second
name. I use it only on official/buroccratic documents.
Now I've created a new 4096 GPG key,
13 matches
Mail list logo
