On 30/01/13 06:25, Prashant Shah wrote:
Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works
rather than using the following sentence.
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files
What do you mean by handle?
If you are
Gervase Markham wrote:
If you are writing a license, please don't include a line like this.
Depending on how you interpret it, it's either ineffective (because the
next person can simply remove your notices as part of their change) or a
pain in the behind (as your file fills up with notices
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
The days of tracking code provenance via in-file comments are gone. And
they are not missed IMO.
Thats the exact problem with few licenses I know of.
Apache - You must cause any modified files to carry prominent
Prashant Shah wrote:
Is there any license out there that puts it in a better way ?
You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with
the existing clauses.
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
Still not sure what objective you are trying to serve. By saying the
copyright point of view do you mean you just want to keep track of the
copyright owners? I'm going to assume that is what you mean for the
rest of this
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Woolley
for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the
existing clauses.
For lots of small modifications made by many developers over a long
period of time - it will be really hard to keep
On 31/01/13 10:20, David Woolley wrote:
The purpose of such clauses is not to track the provenance, but to
maintain the purity of the official version, so that forks cannot be
passed off as approved versions.
This sort of protection is the domain of trademark law, not copyright
law.
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open source developers only
On 31/01/13 10:42, Prashant Shah wrote:
Main objective is to keep track of the copyright owners / authors of
modifications that are made in a work that is _redistributed_ in
source form. So those who receive this new redistributed work know
what and who made the modifications.
Why do they
Hi,
You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the
existing clauses.
I get your point. Although there is nothing wrong with it and it works
when the modifications are significant. Its just hard to maintain it
in source files where there are lots of minor
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
Unless you collect copyright assignments, you should assume that
re-licensing _anything_ will be difficult in the future, in-file
comments or not. Even if you have such comments, you cannot assume they
are accurate,
Gervase Markham wrote:
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is fundamental to the GPL concept,
even if many open
On 31/01/13 12:48, David Woolley wrote:
Particularly with the GPL, many people don't really understand what they
are doing when they use it. They may not even have the right to grant
the licence. One case may be that is is actually work for hire. Another
real case is that someone used source
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 31/01/13 10:37, David Woolley wrote:
In the case of GPL one is it mainly meeting the minimum requirements for
establishing the copyright status of the file when used outside of the
original application. Such re-use is
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com wrote:
I get your point. Although there is nothing wrong with it and it works
when the modifications are significant. Its just hard to maintain it
in source files where there are lots of minor modifications. (eg :
linux
Hi,
I didn't mention this previously but Apache license has a clause if
the work is submitted back to inclusion it has to be under the same
license.
Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by
You to
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
I didn't mention this previously but Apache license has a clause if
the work is submitted back to inclusion it has to be under the same
license.
Yes it
17 matches
Mail list logo
