On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their
behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.
If your plugin uses contrived API riddled with all good C(++)
misfeatures to customize like 80% of
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 01:40:58 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote:
[...]
LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote:
[...]
LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you
distribute by source. It *is* a problem with
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote:
Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings
use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many
of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote:
> Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then
> It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are
> written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license.
LGPL is much more
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:56:40 UTC, Claude wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
This is not the proper place to blog about software license
preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +, Ignacious wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences
>> or to make unsubstantiated
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
This is not the proper place to blog about software license
preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an
organization you don't like. There are other sites
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 06:37:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
[...]
That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of
derivative so you are not saying anything
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
[...]
This is not the proper place to blog about software license
preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an
organization you don't like. There are
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
You haven't really said anything relevant to the post.
The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of
pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they
arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and
exec"
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
[...]
That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of
derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful).
Obviously if you build an independent work
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the
GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of
theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your
work.
That makes no sense(it's obvious by the
You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no
trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their
copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.
You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL --
your work is a derivative of the
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 17:35:23 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one
can do with the source code and binary and what they are.
I'm not sure about what your point is with this. The GPL is
pretty explicit about what you can do with the
15 matches
Mail list logo