Hi all, Marc - thanks for your kind words.
James - good question! Obviously the intention is to keep things as open as possible - and when submitting items into the Imperica Createstore database, GPL is a licensing option, as is EUPL (and many others). Re recommending EUPL, Wikipedia sums it up quite nicely... "Its [EUPL's] main goal is its focusing on being consistent with the copyright law in the 27 Member States of the European Union, while retaining compatibility with popular open-source software licences such as the GNU General Public License." ... so that's why, really: it seemed that suggesting a license which was consistent with both EU copyright law and the GPL was the right thing to do. Cheers, Paul > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: James Morris <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:06:06 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Imperica catalogue > On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:38:00 +0100 > Paul Squires <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > About a fortnight ago, I put a note out to Netbehaviour, saying that > > we're thinking of developing a big index of open source code/software > > on Imperica, to serve the needs of creators, programmers, and > > artists. Thanks all that added their thoughts and opinions - greatly > > appreciated. > > > > The idea has been developed a little further and we've now made a > > little announcement about it: > > > > http://www.imperica.com/createstore > > > > Just curious, why do you suggest the EUPL for licensing code rather > than more widely used licenses such as the GNU GPL? > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL > > > Thanks, > James. > > -- > http://jwm-art.net/ > image/audio/text/code/ > > > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
