At 5:23 PM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
in pseudocode
clause 4
if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm(pronoic))) {
if (useterm(pronoic)) {
noProblem();
} else {
notInTheSpiritOfIt();
}
} else {
APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
* the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
* the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
for permission to use the
Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
for permission to use the term pronoic. in that case your request
will be denied.
This is just... so Zen. A modest proposal as to form follows:
The software should be
Described as
At 9:48 AM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
* the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
that's fine.
* the software should
last summer we wrote
some highly pronoic code
now just needs licence
VOTE yes to APOSSL
cheers
dave
At 9:25 AM -0800 6/3/02, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting dave sag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
for permission to use the term pronoic.
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote:
the basic ideas are as follows:
APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
* the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or
Pronoic Ltd.
This is not a difference. Neither the name of
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:43 p, dave sag wrote:
I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as
possible and are acting more as a review board than an
accreditation board.
We are neither. We are a discussion board.
The discussion tends towards, another!?!?
I hope you don't mind me e-mailing you with an off-topic
question on export controls, but I thought that this group would have people who
are able to reply knowledgeably.
I am acting for a UK-based book publisher that is proposing
to publish a book for programmers concerning a particular
What does quine'd mean?
http://www.ship.edu/~deensl/pgss/Day16/goedel.html
(I admit I used the term loosely to describe a statement which
can be read as a self-reference at more than one level that
creats a contradiction.)
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for your
I wrote:
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for your license.
Your request will be rejected is your request will be rejected.
I thought of another appropriate response...
We will refuse when you ask is we will refuse when you ask.
And another...
We won't
well this is way off topic but
At 3:04 PM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
I wrote:
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for your license.
Your request will be rejected is your request will be rejected.
nice try but quines make sense. your response makes
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
He made a small mistake: what he meant was...
Will be rejected when approval is asked will be rejected when approval
is asked.
Is OK as long as you don't want our stamp of
Quoting Matthew C. Weigel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
1. It's still not a dessert topping, though.
Is not a dessert topping, but is more relevant to this list's
charter than the pronoia licence is not a dessert topping, but is more
relevant to this list's charter than the pronoia licence.
--
Hi OSSL experts,
In my earlier posts to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I failed to
follow protocol and snagged myself on a couple of silly
misunderstandings. For this I apologise.
I have now followed from the list at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html and hope that
this meets with
okay, sorry to be a pedant. this will be the last post on this OT
thread from me.
At 4:27 PM -0500 6/3/02, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote:
nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense.
He made a small mistake: what he meant
all fun aside, I am serious about APOSSL and believe I have reacted
in a serious manner to all serious points made.
Serious means more than simply not joking. John Cowan pointed out a
major mistake in 1.0, which was totally the opposite of what you
intended. If you were serious you would
16 matches
Mail list logo
