> Let me be clearer and put on my list administrator's hat for a moment.
> Stop it. Everybody. Now.
I'm sorry for sending my last post, I sent it before reading this.
I will stop posting about this topic. And sorry for derailing a
discussion :-)
Regards,
-- Jorgen
> i cant include GPL software in my program unless i make my program
> open source. and for me that is restrective because thousands of
> companies produce propriatery software, i am not in the position in my
> company to release the software as open source, and in fact, being a
> small company if
Michael Homer wrote:
> If you do not have code in the repository, this post was not directed
> at you, so please don't clutter the archives and make it harder to
> find the salient information later.
>
I think that's fair enough :) How about we move any remaining
discussion to the forum?
http
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM, =RiCo= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/16/08, Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You are confusing that with the argument that the GPL does not
> > allow you to make your code non-free - i.e. it does not allow you
> > to modify the code and
El mié, 16 abr 2008, mpb escribió:
> The question is:
>
> 1) Should software be "free" (as in the GPL), or...
>
> 2) Should people be free to do what they want (including not releasing
> modified source code, as in the BSD or better yet, Public Domain),
> or...
IMHO if a developer wants his cod
On 4/16/08, Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are confusing that with the argument that the GPL does not
> allow you to make your code non-free - i.e. it does not allow you
> to modify the code and just distribute it in binary form without
> available source code, giving others
El jue, 17 abr 2008, Jonas Karlsson escribió:
> ACK by request.
ACK here also.
Aitor.
--
If the kids are united they will never be divided!
___
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listin
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:53:53 -0300
Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Everyone decides for its own code, but generally speaking I agree with
> > rico on this point, even if I'm not really into the development of
> > GoboLinux.
>
> I agree with until this code enters Gobo re
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:14:10 +0200
Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everyone decides for its own code, but generally speaking I agree with
> rico on this point, even if I'm not really into the development of
> GoboLinux.
I agree with until this code enters Gobo repositories. A bad-
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:42:53 +0200, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> To my knowledge, we have acks from me, Jonas, Lucas, Hisham, André,
>> and Carlo, which covers most of the code, but we still need them fr
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To my knowledge, we have acks from me, Jonas, Lucas, Hisham, André,
> and Carlo, which covers most of the code, but we still need them from
> Dan, Guillherme, Rafael, MJ, and Aitor. Also from anybody who's
> contribut
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael Homer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] but we still need them from
> > Dan, Guillherme, Rafael, MJ, and Aitor. [...]
>
> I'm fine with GPL2+ for any of my contributions here.
Good.
> > The idea of setting up a fo
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Aitor Pérez Iturri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you restricting freedom if modificiations of your code
> are mandatory to be free?
The question is:
1) Should software be "free" (as in the GPL), or...
2) Should people be free to do what they want (incl
=RiCo= wrote:
> On 4/16/08, Paul Gideon Dann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> > advantage of "copyleft" license like GPL is that contributors who
>> > contribute their changes *must* be releasing them under GPL so we don't
>> > need to worry/ask about whether they agreed
El mié, 16 abr 2008, Michael Homer escribió:
Hi all,
I feel right with the GPL license, you can copyrigth code and patches to
code are going to be free always.
Why are you restricting freedom if modificiations of your code
are mandatory to be free?
Greets.
Aitor.
--
If the kids are united th
> in my opinion GPL type licenses are in fact not free, as u are
> not free to sell software that uses GPL licenced software.
False. The GPL says nothing about selling software, and GPL
licensed programs have been sold quite well in the past, and
continue to be sold (see various Linux distribution
Quite right, I agree! BSD-like licences are far more "free", as in
"do what you want with it". The FSF uses the term "free" as a
philosophical term though, more like "free-running water". The idea is
that the software brings "power to the people" in a hippy kind of way.
Interestingly, L
On 4/16/08, Paul Gideon Dann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac Dupree wrote:
> > advantage of "copyleft" license like GPL is that contributors who
> > contribute their changes *must* be releasing them under GPL so we don't
> > need to worry/ask about whether they agreed to the license (I think?
Isaac Dupree wrote:
> advantage of "copyleft" license like GPL is that contributors who
> contribute their changes *must* be releasing them under GPL so we don't
> need to worry/ask about whether they agreed to the license (I think?)
>
Yes, I think contributing a patch kind of implies that they
Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote:
> If I had to choose a license, I'd go with ISC
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license). IMHO, licensing became pretty
> counter-productive nowadays, in such a way that people might spend more time
> dealing with licensing issues than coding. Again, IMHO.
"Michael Homer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] but we still need them from
> Dan, Guillherme, Rafael, MJ, and Aitor. [...]
I'm fine with GPL2+ for any of my contributions here.
> The idea of setting up a formal organisation, and possibly doing
> copyright assignment to that, was also raised,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> There was some discussion on the tools licensing situation on IRC in
> the last couple of days, ultimately settling on GPL 2+ for the moment.
> Much of what's in the repository now has vague handwavy "GPL"
> l
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:52:00 +1200
"Michael Homer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To my knowledge, we have acks from me, Jonas, Lucas, Hisham, André,
> and Carlo, which covers most of the code, but we still need them from
> Dan, Guillherme, Rafael, MJ, and Aitor. Also from anybody who's
> contribute
Hi all,
There was some discussion on the tools licensing situation on IRC in
the last couple of days, ultimately settling on GPL 2+ for the moment.
Much of what's in the repository now has vague handwavy "GPL"
licensing or none at all. Is everybody ok with that license? (pro tem
at least)
To my kn
24 matches
Mail list logo
