On Tue June 15 2010 23:22:35 Wesley Shields wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Bröder wrote:
Hello,
I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet.
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several
popular licenses are missing and
On 10/23/2010 2:41 PM, Marco Bröder wrote:
On Tue June 15 2010 23:22:35 Wesley Shields wrote:
I neither saw a reply from alepulver@ nor anything else on this subject. Are
there any further news? There was nothing added to the Porter's Handbook, too.
So I guess the situation did not change
On 10/23/2010 2:41 PM, Marco Bröder wrote:
On Tue June 15 2010 23:22:35 Wesley Shields wrote:
I neither saw a reply from alepulver@ nor anything else on this subject. Are
there any further news? There was nothing added to the Porter's Handbook, too.
So I guess the situation did not change
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:48:14AM -0700, Micheas Herman wrote:
I don't think the FreeBSD project could afford to have this license
cataloging scheme regularly inspected by appropriate legal counsel for
each of the various different jurisdictions around the world and for
them to approve
On 06/16/2010 16:06, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
On 15/06/2010 02:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
BSD-2-clause# Simplified BSD License
BSD-3-clause# Modified or New BSD License
BSD-4-clause# Original BSD License
Just a side note, am I the only one using a single clause variant
of the BSDL?
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 08:21 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
are some sort of clean way of saying this license or higher and possibly
On 15/06/2010 02:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
BSD-2-clause# Simplified BSD License
BSD-3-clause# Modified or New BSD License
BSD-4-clause# Original BSD License
Just a side note, am I the only one using a single clause variant
of the BSDL? I really don't give a damn what people do with
From: Philip M. Gollucci pgollu...@p6m7g8.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:03:08 +
On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example is
not adequate:
A
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Where I live, someone without a legal degree cannot offer legal
advice
[..]
It might also not be a bad idea to not display anything about
licensing until a human enables some Makefile switch which acknowledges
the limitations of the system (ie, license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
are some sort of clean way of saying this license or higher and possibly
something along the lines of like this licence for cases where
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 08:21 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
are some sort of clean way of saying this license or higher and possibly
On Tue June 15 2010 04:03:08 Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example
is
not adequate:
A very good idea, but not
On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
BSD licences should be separated.
Yes, they really are different licenses.
Who else should it know better than the FreeBSD Project (and NetBSD, OpenBSD,
DragonflyBSD, ...)? ;-)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Marco Bröder marco.broe...@gmx.eu wrote:
On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
BSD licences should be separated.
Yes, they really are different licenses.
The BSD license has evolved
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Marco Bröder marco.broe...@gmx.eu wrote:
On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
BSD licences should be
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Br??der wrote:
Hello,
I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet.
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several
popular licenses are missing and some license foo is not right /
specific enough to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example is
not adequate:
A very good idea, but not neccessarily the
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to be
considered legally correct (for example there is no 'one BSD License', there
are at least three of
On Jun 14, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to
be
considered legally correct (for example there is no
19 matches
Mail list logo
