On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:04:32 +0100
Daniel Littlewood wrote:
Dear Daniel,
> My argument that the GPL is simpler here is that in the "default case"
> where changes are simply submitted without the contributor talking
> about licensing, the project as a whole is not covered by the given
> license
Dear Laslo,
> as far as I know, there's no need for a CLA. CLAs are just a
> simplification that contributors waive their rights to the code to the
> legal entity behind the project so the license file is not littered
> with 100s of people but only the legal entity. Which license you're
> using
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:06:32 +0100
Daniel Littlewood wrote:
Dear Daniel,
> I am wary of going too far off topic, but I think a convincing
> argument against the use of "permissive" licenses like MIT is that if
> your project grows above a certain size, it necessitates CLAs in
> addition to a
Hi Pedro,
Thanks for those mentions, I love the qutebrowser project and am
warmed to see other examples of GPL projects finding ways to monetise
their work.
I am wary of going too far off topic, but I think a convincing
argument against the use of "permissive" licenses like MIT is that if
your
Hi, Laslo and Hiltjo,
> You don't sell CDs with your software anymore (this
> worked maybe 20 years ago), but you can make good money with providing
> support, which is, I think, the most probable direction.
> > I think for businesses a development-model of selling and providing
> > the full
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:06:39 +0200
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
Dear Hiltjo,
> The last sentence regarding non-financial political interests is not
> true/misleading. See also the page "Selling Free Software":
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
interesting link, thanks for sharing.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:41:03AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:19:43 +0200
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
>
> Dear Hiltjo,
>
> > I actively search for FOSS in my life and think using software which
> > is GPL-licensed is fine.
>
> yeah, opinions differ here of course. I also
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:19:43 +0200
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
Dear Hiltjo,
> I actively search for FOSS in my life and think using software which
> is GPL-licensed is fine.
yeah, opinions differ here of course. I also use a lot of GPL-licensed
software, but avoid it in terms of
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:32:52AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:01:41 +0100
> Daniel Littlewood wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel,
>
> > Thanks for your reply - I appreciate that this does not have much
> > practical importance. Unfortunately the simplest way for me to version
> >
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:01:41 +0100
Daniel Littlewood wrote:
Dear Daniel,
> Thanks for your reply - I appreciate that this does not have much
> practical importance. Unfortunately the simplest way for me to version
> my dwm copy is by hosting it on Github, which is in some sense
> "publishing"
Dear Laslo,
Thanks for your reply - I appreciate that this does not have much
practical importance. Unfortunately the simplest way for me to version
my dwm copy is by hosting it on Github, which is in some sense
"publishing" it. I was hoping to be able to do this without worrying,
but it seems
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:54:43 +0100
Daniel Littlewood wrote:
Dear Daniel,
> Hi all, apologies if this is the wrong mailing list (I couldn't tell
> exactly where to send it).
>
> Could someone please confirm for me what the licensing status of
> patches hosted on the suckless domain is? I assume
12 matches
Mail list logo
