In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
survey[3] of free software licenses):
4. Source to bug
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code to a
particular license. That is, I want to allow my code to be
If I download some GPL code and it contains some MIT code, can I
just take those MIT portions and act upon them (1) only according
to MIT license? (2) only according to GPL? (3) or both?
Thanks for your consideration.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
* Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070404 01:09]:
Calling Affero code proprietary is a pretty big stretch. Yes, there's a
clause in there which is a restriction on modification - so it's not
entirely free. But you still have to release the source to
modifications, source follows the
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:03:56 -0700 Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
If I download some GPL code and it contains some MIT code, can I
just take those MIT portions and act upon them (1) only according
to MIT license?
Yes, *as long as* you are able to extract the MIT-licensed part.
In some cases, the
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:30 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of
the license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning,
i.e.
Am 2007-03-28 01:18:32, schrieb Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu):
Lossless and lossy compression format don't mean anything on preferred
form for modification. Some recorders do record mp3/ogg directly. And
some audio editors do edit mp3/ogg directly. And many of the authors of
the audio works don't
Am 2007-03-28 01:00:13, schrieb Francesco Poli:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:32 +0800 Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:
To require the author to use some listed formats for image source or
audio source is impracticable.
Indeed! Because what is source for a work, can be a compiled form for
Am 2007-03-24 23:08:31, schrieb Vsevolod Krishchenko:
On Saturday 24 March 2007 22:53, you wrote:
find /usr/share/doc -name copyright|xargs tar czf I_Love_Russia.tar.gz
That gives the Russian authorities something to read. :)
Sad point is it must be translated (at least unofficial
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Suraj N. Kurapati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements
for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:01:02 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
And currently I create some new weapons but the source of sunburn
for example is around 70 MBytes including the sound effects plus a
real Video of 480 MByte as source which will be converted to a OGM
to around 30 MByte.
I'm not
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:40:12 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using
14 matches
Mail list logo
