On Apr 1, 2015 4:04 AM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios tjm1...@gmail.com wrote:
Really? Then do the BSD and ISC licences also violate the OSD and FSD,
because they don't require the source code of derivative works to be
made available?
Rick Moen:
A broader point: The quest for the shortest possible licence (of
whatever category) strikes me as solving the wrong problem.
You wouldn't write your own libc these days: you'd leave it to experts.
The consequences for getting basic security and functionality code wrong
there would
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:58 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Software has special problems that CC's classes of licences don't need
to address. I have no problem reverse-engineering the construction of a
novel to determine how to write my own. (There cannot be a proprietary
secret sauce, no
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 18:13 +, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz wrote:
The Simple Public License (SimPL) is a lawyer-written, OSI-approved, plain
language and relatively short copyleft license. It's available on the OSI
website.
Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't seen that one before, and I'm
On 4/1/15, 5:44 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of
commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial
exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and
5 matches
Mail list logo
