After i read your comment's (mailing list members) and my post again, i
realized that i was trying to oblige people to do something that is suppose
to flourish naturally. If the program is used and becomes popular, people
will want their names in the developers page and will add themselfs to
Is it not plausible, though, that some documentation is outside a
piece of software and yet still of interest to the Open Source
software community?
Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated documentation
suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than affiliated documentation
Can we have an answer from the OSI board as to the applicability of the OSD to
documentation licenses before anything is put on the web pages please?
It seems a contentious issue, as non-package documentation seems quite key to the
world of open source.
SamBC
Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you call a rant about how hypochritical us poor license-discuss
folks are, ignoring virtually everything I said? If you're not out to
save us, then you're just trying to show how smart you are. Oops.
I never
On Tuesday 28 August 2001 12:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we have an answer from the OSI board as to the applicability of the OSD
to documentation licenses before anything is put on the web pages please?
The webpage was only changed (actually only italicized[sp?]) to reflect that
the *OSI
John Cowan wrote:
You keep ignoring the QPL and the Artistic License,
ah, constructive help is so refreshing ;)
thank you.
someone did mention the QPL license earlier.
I looked at it, but my concern is that it
uses the word software everywhere.
I was looking at licensing a MSWord document
You speak as if you have some authority over this list, demanding that people go
elsewhere? Do you represent OSI? If so, it really should say so in your sig (included
below)... I therefore assume that you do not, and ask that you be more polite. You
have not reacted to anyone's points, merely
Hello again,
If i release a program code, under Public Domain, can others make it
private domain ?
Let's say i release the code of a Java game, under Public Domain, basically
i'm giving the source code to the world, right ? Or can let's say CompanyB,
oh public domain that's nice, let me
Rob Myers wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
someone did mention the QPL license earlier.
I looked at it, but my concern is that it
uses the word software everywhere.
If the license isn't copyrighted,
just search replace.
I just checked. QPL is copy/distribute/no-modify.
Or define
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[would you mind wrapping your lines?]
Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated
documentation suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than
affiliated documentation (and how often do you find out-of-date man
pages in Linux?).
At 13:23 28-08-2001 -0700, you wrote:
on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:08:14PM +0100, Daniel MD ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
After i read your comment's (mailing list members) and my post again,
i realized that i was trying to oblige people to do something that is
suppose to flourish naturally. If
After i read your comment's (mailing list members) and my post again,
i realized that i was trying to oblige people to do something that is
suppose to flourish naturally. If the program is used and becomes
popular, people will want their names in the developers page and will
Daniel MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The result is that forking in GPLd projects is rare, and
reconcilliation has been known to happen. The Alan Cox (ac) Linux
kernel series is a persistant, but narrow, fork of Linus's own
development. emacs/xemacs is probably the most
13 matches
Mail list logo
