On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote:
What if I fork a project because I think it gives me a good
starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to
take things will
result in a completely
On January 29, 2011 10:17:36 am Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote:
What if I fork a project because I think it gives me a good
starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to
take
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow licenses,
only to have those projects act very territorial and not in the proper
spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the other
project know what
On Saturday 29 January 2011 05:40:52 Geoff Beasley wrote:
On 01/29/2011 12:51 PM, Tim E. Real wrote:
As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse in
the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Alex, you still don't seem to get the point - none of these requests are
a
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow
licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in
the proper spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like.
On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow
licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 11:15 -0500, Raymond Martin wrote:
Stick to the license, that is all that is required of you.
Yes, please do. Does it say that the GPL lifts the copyright? No it does
not! It is in fact copyright law that makes copyleft tick in the first
place.
You want to fork a project
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
What you are saying boils down to people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return. Talk about childish :)
Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not
required to do anything besides adhere to the
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:38:58 +
James Morris jwm.art@gmail.com wrote:
Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little
courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt.
Otherwise I agree with you.
I was dismayed to see this thread and the way
On January 29, 2011 01:38:58 pm you wrote:
On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow
licenses, only to
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille arn...@arnoldarts.de wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from all copyright-holders
is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
you switch from gpl2 or any later to gpl3 only or from gpl2 or
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote:
you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
Hi Torben,
Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory)
On 01/29/2011 10:01 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote:
you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
Hi Torben,
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required.
You absolutely misread it.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required.
no. they, we, i am acting as though you'd better
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille arn...@arnoldarts.de wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from all
copyright-holders is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 15:11 -0500, Raymond Martin wrote:
To remember: If copyrights were not explicitly and in writing signed
over to you then they were not.
/j
The copyright in the license is the credit!
These are dire straits. I am afraid your ship is heading towards the
cliffs.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 22:42:16 Arnold Krille wrote:
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille arn...@arnoldarts.de
wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from all
copyright-holders is
the same kind of
Anyway that is the reason I delete the or any later term in my copyright
notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether gpl4 will give
all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the nsa...
I have always wondered about this, as it never made sense to me to license
19 matches
Mail list logo
