[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Which License should I pick?
: On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
:
: How do you currently accept submissions? Do you take patches?
: Third-party code modules or files? Think of how you can make
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less
restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without
the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The
Maybe I am missing something, but
Bjorn Reese wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less
restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without
the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The
Maybe I am
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
Like you say, it's good to keep as many options open as possible, and it's
hard to go back on a licensing decision if it's too broad.
No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less
restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed
code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors
either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the
license?
It's fairly common, though
begin Scott Long quotation:
I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for
contributed code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate
that contributors either transfer copyright or agree to allow the
owner to change the license? If I asked for such an agreement would
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
How do you currently accept submissions? Do you take patches?
Third-party code modules or files? Think of how you can make clear
the permissions granted to you by the contributors.
Well, the project hasn't gone public yet, which is why I'm
begin Scott Long quotation:
Well, the project hasn't gone public yet, which is why I'm asking these
licensing questions. I don't anticipate changes to the basic code base,
but I do expect that people may want to write various modules.
What of bug fixes?
I wouldn't necessarily be
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Daniel Carrera wrote:
This is going to be a moderately long message, but I believe the
license to be one of the more important things to get right
You might want to start with the safest license, the GPL. You can
always change your mind, or go for a dual-license.
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:15:24AM -0800, Scott Long wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Daniel Carrera wrote:
This is going to be a moderately long message, but I believe the
license to be one of the more important things to get right
You might want to start with the safest license, the
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
2003/12/04 12:26 Subject: Re: Which License should I
pick
Scott Long scripsit:
I also feel that a person shouldn't be made to read kilobytes of text
in order to understand the license agreement. Therefore, the brevity
and clarity of the license is also a factor. (This also has to do with
my ability to understand my own license, because legal
Scott Long scripsit:
The difference being, a core file actually contains executable
instructions from the original binary on disk. My format is different --
it only contains the DIFFERENCES between what is in memory and what is on
disk. So I'm wondering if my snapshots are derived works or
Scott Long said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:22:54PM -0800,:
derived work, then I've just made a binary only distribution of Emacs,
therefore violating the GPL. This would mean that in order to exchange
such snapshots, people would have to make the source code to Emacs
available from the
Hello, everybody,
I am planning to create a SourceForge project in the near future. I've
been working on a project, and it's starting to become complicated
enough and functional enough that I'd like to have it hosted somewhere
other than my home server. I have two lines of questions. The first is
This is going to be a moderately long message, but I believe the
license to be one of the more important things to get right
You might want to start with the safest license, the GPL. You can
always change your mind, or go for a dual-license.
Specifically, I do NOT want to use something
On Dec 3, 2003, at 4:21 PM, Scott Long wrote:
Hello, everybody,
Hi, Scott--
[ ... ]
I have briefly skimmed the list of licenses at
http://opensource.org/licenses/ and the BSD license looks like it
fulfills my conditions. I'm posting to this list to see if my
interpretation of the license is
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Daniel Carrera wrote:
SECOND LINE OF QUESTIONS:
The project itself performs actions on the in-core binary images of
running processes. It is capable of saving snapshots of the address
spaces of running processes to disk. I would like to have
clarification whether
On Dec 3, 2003, at 5:22 PM, Scott Long wrote:
Imagine that I take a memory snapshot of a running Emacs process. I
then
send this snapshot to somebody else. If the snapshot is considered a
derived work, then I've just made a binary only distribution of
Emacs,
therefore violating the GPL. This
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Chuck Swiger wrote:
The difference being, a core file actually contains executable
instructions from the original binary on disk. My format is different
--
it only contains the DIFFERENCES between what is in memory and what is
on
disk. So I'm wondering if my
20 matches
Mail list logo
