On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
continue to do so. :-)
Curt.
I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
do...
I don't think anyone
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
free beer) but also want to make
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else for their own
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very
newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
stomped out
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free
contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them
onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.
This has happened several
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
Paul
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
The authors would have no recourse then.
Note that he said
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks
very newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh!
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote:
The redistributors either have
to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed
Just for clarification, you
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
the sounds: that violates the GPL.
Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright
notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
do...
I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a
strawman to argue
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 +
Dave Martin wrote:
I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is
often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating
Author's name.
one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
Copyright (C)
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
Thats it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if Ralph
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone
Jim Wilson said:
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is still place for non-GPL
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
continue to do so. :-)
Curt.
I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume
their offspring.
Dave Martin
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you
charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as
GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat.
24 matches
Mail list logo
