Richard Fontana wrote at 08:20 (EDT):
Not with an exception in the GPLv2 exception sense, and not without
the result being (A)GPLv3-incompatible, since under TGPPL each
downstream distributor appears to be required to give the grace
period.
ISTR that Zooko was willing to drop that requirement
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote:
On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was
more problematic than useful. Linking
Hi,
http://unlicense.org/
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ?
CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how
patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified.
CC0 :
*4. Limitations
The problem/issue is that it is difficult to address licenses
without, imo at least, the politics of said license leaking
in.
It is difficult to write things without personal biases filtering
out, something which happens with me fwiw.
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org
On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual
license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but
it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost
always be) by political or cultural bias.
Speaking for myself I find the CC mechanism and license chooser quite nice
and not problematic at all for the vast majority of use cases.
On 8/17/13 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013, at 02:25 PM, Eben Moglen wrote:
You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
Dr. Moglen,
I'd like to highlight Cowan's advice since I've found it very helpful
(and completely un-obvious) in my own life:
Civil apologies require confession, contrition, and
Prashant Shah scripsit:
CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how
patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified.
The presence of the patent verbs use and sell and the use of uncumbered
suggest that there is a patent license, but no more than
Hello license-discuss,
On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements
made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the
assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software
alterations).
John Cowan wrote at 13:27 (EDT) on Sunday:
== licensing content ends here, the rest is about civil behavior ==
I've already written to Larry privately to this point, but given that
this subset of the conversation has raged on, I'd like to echo John's
point: I think many comments on this thread
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:44:02PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Zooko,
It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions
for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to
Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3.
I believe this is indeed possible, but requires a
Quoting Prashant Shah (pshah.mum...@gmail.com):
Hi,
'Lo.
http://unlicense.org/
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ?
CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the
event that its primary intent runs
12 matches
Mail list logo
