Well, since this discussion is public now :)... exactly what seems to be
the problem? The book talks about code that is often in the public
Store repository. Is the problem that the code in the public Store
repository doesn't have an MIT license? Or is the problem that the book
that talks about the code in the public Store repository doesn't say
"and the code has an MIT license"?
On 9/26/10 7:08 , Serge Stinckwich wrote:
This is better to explicit put a MIT licence. If there is no licence, normally
you can't do anything with the code.
Le 26 sept. 2010 à 17:45, DeNigris Sean<[email protected]> a écrit :
I emailed Andres, the author, and he said "the code didn't have a license because I
meant to put no restrictions on it... The MIT license is fine with me. In fact, I
released the Hash Analysis Tool and Assessments under the MIT license already."
Then he asked a great question: "Let me know what you need and I'll put it in. Or
do you need that the book explicitly states the code mentioned therein is MIT?"
I've been contacting many people to declare code as MIT. What "proof" is
considered acceptable? I've been announcing it on the mailing list, so anyone could
search back, contact me, and I could send them the email I received from the author, but
that requires remembering the post, finding it, etc. What's the best way to go about
this? License gurus?
Sean
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
