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
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. T
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 pr
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 l
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 th
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 a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:37:11PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Copyright (c)
>
> 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
> withou
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
> No, you misunderstand me. I know they can make a competing derivative of the
> code I produce (but I don't particularly fear this). The problem I'm trying
> to solve is of specifying ownership of the actual code I deliver. If I don't
> say anything i
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
> >
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> Copyright (c)
[snip]
> Stuff in [] is optional. Stuff in <> needs to be replaced.
For those following along at home, this is (basically) the X11 license.
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
Don Armstrong
--
"A one-question geek test. If you ge
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
Copyright (c)
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, publish,
distribute,
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 someo
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 genera
15 matches
Mail list logo
