On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:14:30PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think
that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't
restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we
decide not to package BSD or X
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:57:14PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to
have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be
rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license
promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that
freedom or not.
I disagree. Our Social Contract says that our priorities are our
users and Free Software. This
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:02:55PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The
right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not
assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to
have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be
rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom.
I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he
didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer
to the legal scope of copyright law.
Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well
equiped to
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 04:56 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
They could, of course, sell the software to someone
else, but the usual caveats about selling free software
(i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might
be
Admidst the storms of controversy, I'd just like to ask a (hopefully) simple
question... ;-)
The GPL is the clear winner for being a maximally standard copyleft free
license.
The BSD license is apparently not directly usable (mentions Berkeley
explicitly, etc), so these licenses are generally
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license
details -- I'd like to just say BSD license or some appropriate standard
that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someone
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally
free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it).
You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause BSD
license. FE, see http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
12 matches
Mail list logo
