On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:02 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing
stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software:
I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means:
I am willing to share my ideas (and
Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb:
Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the
first place?
Thanks to everyone for sharing their views on the licensing issue. Quite
a few statements and arguments to think about... Choosing an appropriate
license for a project is even trickier
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Bernd R. Fix bernd@aspector.com wrote:
Hi,
I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
documentation on the project homepage http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P;;
the published
Very cool. Can I mount it with v9fs? :-)
I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough.
Dave
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix bernd@aspector.com wrote:
Hi,
I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
published (pre-alpha status,
This is seriously cool and must be added to:
http://9p.cat-v.org/implementations
Thanks,
Roman.
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:43 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
Hi,
I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to
use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
BSDLng it.
I figured the best way to understand 9p would be to implement it :-)
Dave
On Wed, Apr
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Bernd R. Fix bernd@aspector.com wrote:
David Leimbach schrieb:
Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able
to
use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
David Leimbach schrieb:
Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to
use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
BSDLng it.
Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb:
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
David Leimbach schrieb:
Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to
use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
there even exists a
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
I am sure that this
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
and want to include a GPL
Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody
wants to use it because of the license?
Lucho
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro jrm8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200,
Alex Efros wrote:
GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after
500+ messages, and we can get on with the other discussions.
Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't
require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only
requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their
code.
Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and
resources. I
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Wes Kussmaul w...@authentrus.com wrote:
Alex Efros wrote:
GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my
war.
Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after 500+
messages, and we can get on with the other
So while the forcible sharing of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are
made
available to you.
Stealing code is common practice, don't try to prevent it.
And there are no guarantees as you can see in piratebay
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 02:47:29PM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody
wants to use it because of the license?
Ok, this is flamebait, but...
From what I've seen, it works; there are plenty of projects under the GPL that
get
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:11:28PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't
require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only
requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their
code.
Trying to enforce private
Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying
to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their
basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a don't ask, don't
tell policy, which is as effectual as a license can get.
Thank god
20 matches
Mail list logo
