On 29 January 2016 at 11:04, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> I mean the original ancient vim license of the times before GPLv2+.
But as you see they moved on from that. And for good reasons.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
I mean the original ancient vim license of the times before GPLv2+.
Am 2016-01-29 um 11:03 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
On 01/21/2016 05:09 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship
their patches proactively to the upstream developers an
On 01/21/2016 05:09 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship
their patches proactively to the upstream developers and thus possibly
to the public. If the vim license does not discriminate against a
certain field of endeavour this licen
Le Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:49:51PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger a écrit :
>
> In order to improve the situation and make this software available to a
> broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
> scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'. It shall give
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:33:42 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Elmar Stellnberger writes:
>
> > I have various issues about current licenses. Just see at what makes
> > this license pretty much different from other established licenses.
> > Let us discuss this in detail when the license should be fit fo
> > For one thing, there is the problem of license proliferation.
>
> Yes that is certainly a problem; though there are some attempts to
> mitigate these issues:
> * it can be used together with any other OSS compatible license.
For copyleft licenses, it can't, because those licenses would also
Elmar Stellnberger writes:
> I have various issues about current licenses. Just see at what makes
> this license pretty much different from other established licenses.
> Let us discuss this in detail when the license should be fit for
> approval.
Please do not compound the already widespread pro
> Also, I do not like the idea of someone being able
> to change the licence of my derived work without my permission.
Actually, I changed my mind about this. I do think it is fine to allow
people to re-licence my derived work, I just do not think that it
should only be the original authors that g
Some general feedback:
On 21/01/16 22:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
CONVERTIBLE FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE
Version 0.8, 2016-01-21 , *** This is just a draft ***
copyright 2016, by Elmar Stellnberger
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document. You must
> 3. It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will
> be available to the public for free. Available for free means that there
> will be no undue hinderance in obtaining the given item like a
> registration of the person who wants to download or obtain the given
> item. Availab
On 21/01/16 22:33, jonathon wrote:
5. When applying changes to the source code you need to leave your name,
your email address and the date of your modifications so that other
people may contact you.
Fails the Desert Island Test
jonathon
Maybe not.
a) The guy could have an email address create
Dear Riley Baird,
Am 2016-01-21 um 22:44 schrieb Riley Baird:
Hi,
In order to improve the situation and make this software available to
a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'.
It's almost never a
Hi Jonathon,
Am 2016-01-21 um 22:33 schrieb jonathon:
>
>
> On 21/01/2016 21:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>
>> a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license
from scratch:
>
> What problem are you trying with this license, that other licenses don't
> solve?
>
I have vario
Hi,
>In order to improve the situation and make this software available to
> a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
> scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'.
It's almost never a good idea to make your own license. And I know how
you feel
On 21/01/2016 21:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
> scratch:
What problem are you trying with this license, that other licenses don't
solve?
> 3. It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will
> be a
Dear Fellows of the Debian Legal List,
Currently most of the software available via my homepage
www.elstel.org is under S-FSL, a license which guarantees free usage and
certain modification rights but which is not a true open source license.
Debian packages would have been available for many
16 matches
Mail list logo