On Oct 26 21:37, David Sastre Medina wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source
software.
I think you should total up the list of recommendations
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a
| research.
|
| I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I
| definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the
| files, because I'm
On Oct 27 16:46, Jari Aalto wrote:
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| The setup files in Fedora don't have such a header either. The only
| copyright note is this text in /usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
|
| Setup package is public domain.
|
| You are free to use, copy,
On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote:
2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina
On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote:
| https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
|
| Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice,
2012-10-26 08:57 Achim Gratz stromeko-i47jitek...@public.gmane.org:
| David Sastre Medina writes:
|
| The only outstanding issue I can think of right now, would be
| to revert this change:
|
| -PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:${PATH}
| +ORIGINAL_PATH=${PATH}
| +PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin
|
|
On Oct 26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote:
2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina
On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote:
| https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
|
| Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
No worries, it caught
On 2012-10-26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
|
| Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea,
| why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service
| as our base-files package, PD licensed as well?
Perhaps it was done and forgotten. World is diferent
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source
software.
I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has made
over the years, and decide if you really want to be constrained use only
things that make FSF
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source
software.
I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has
made over the years, and decide if you
According to:
git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git
May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is to
my understanding recommended only for data (images, pure data files,
databases etc.), or for code snippets that accompany documentation
On 10/25/2012 12:43 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
According to:
git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git
May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is to
my understanding recommended only for data (images, pure data files,
databases etc.), or
2012-10-25 17:17 Warren Young
2012-10-25 17:17 Warren Young
| On 10/25/2012 12:43 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
|
| According to:
|
| git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git
|
|
| May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is
| to my
https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
I am not a lawyer, and most of this parlance goes far beyond my
understanding. I wouldn't mean any harm whatsoever to this project, or
would I purposedly introduced a legal flaw by using the Public Domain
2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina
On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote:
| https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
|
| Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering
the existing licencing policy in Open
David Sastre Medina writes:
The only outstanding issue I can think of right now, would be
to revert this change:
-PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:${PATH}
+ORIGINAL_PATH=${PATH}
+PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin
The details about this issue can be found here:
15 matches
Mail list logo
