On Nov 24, 3:15 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yuck, that's a terrible license. The second paragraph is rather ambiguous: > > Redistributions in binary form must not misrepresent ... other materials > provided with the distribution. > > sounds like the following would violate this: you distribute documentation > with your software... the distributed binary is compatable only with 64-bit > hardware, and you claim to be 32-bit compatable in the docs. > > Also, the third paragraph is missing a "not", which makes it nongrammatical. > *yay*. > > Fortunately, it's close enough to the MIT license, that if you pointed these > flaws out to him, he might change.
Yeah, I did fly by night thing. What I wanted was to put companies like SCO into legal trouble if they attempted to claim they "owned" pstdint.h just because they happened to be using it and claiming someone else did and therefore was engaging in copyright infringement. (Like they did with the system V malloc implementation and Linux.) I am considering just dual licensing everything just GPL v2.1 and BSD though I guess I should look at the MIT license. Basically I would just like the file to be widely enough used that I should be able to take credit for it just enough that people would generally know that I did it (and get a few kudos for it), without that itself being too much of a restriction, and for people not to use it in an abusive way. -- Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ http://bstring.sf.net/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
