David Bovill wrote:
Richard Gaskin wrote:
That would be ideal. I'm glad he's looking into it; the first two times I
asked him he said it vouldn't be done, but it's so common with most hosting
services it seemed reasonable to ask. Hope it works out.
If we can use that section of his server for F
From: "J. Landman Gay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I had never been to SourceForge, so I took a look yesterday. I think the
> lack of ftp access is a big drawback, and I think that if we are
> required to find a CVS client (which may not even exist for OS X users,
> I don't know) and get everything set
David Bovill wrote:
> 1) Some people consider this stealing free code donated by other people
> and then charging for it - like we do with the environment - and get all
> irate.
If they can find a Rev user who already has a great-looking IDE to pay for
the MC IDE which would also be freely availa
At 10:22 am +0100 11/9/03, David Bovill wrote:
(By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl
available for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted
on the RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC
IDE, I suppose that would be a more appropriate location.)
Dave Cragg wrote:
One possible problem not discussed so far is the inclusion of libUrl
with the IDE. The same (identical) library script is distributed with
Rev, and I don't imagine they would like it to be covered by any of the
more restrictive licenses. (And I don't suppose it could be.) The
Ken Ray wrote:
The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public
domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with
it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be
too a broad license. Do we care?
No. If someone wants to take the MC IDE (MINUS
At 1:03 am -0700 10/9/03, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Scott Raney wrote:
A couple of points on the license-type debate:
1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain
(least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most
restrictive) would be fine.
2) A co
> The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public
> domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with
> it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be
> too a broad license. Do we care?
No. If someone wants to take the MC IDE (MINUS the eng
Robert Brenstein wrote:
The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public
domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with
it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be
too a broad license. Do we care?
Scott doesn't, and it's his baby.
An
Robert Brenstein wrote:
> The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public
> domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with
> it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be
> too a broad license. Do we care?
Scott doesn't, and it's his baby
J. Landman Gay wrote:
After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It
seems to me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't
require any special handling, allows anyone to do anything without
legal entanglments, and is just generally easier to manage. So I
vote for pub
J. Landman Gay wrote:
After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It seems to
me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't require any
special handling, allows anyone to do anything without legal
entanglments, and is just generally easier to manage. So I vote for
pub
ct: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Hi Richard, David, All,
I've been following the open source MC IDE discussion and commend the initiative being taken and everyones efforts to move the project forward.
The discussion brought back some memories of a time when I was involved in a sim
On 9/10/03 3:03 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate
public domain.
After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It seems to
me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't require any
special handling, allows an
Scott Raney wrote:
> A couple of points on the license-type debate:
> 1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain
> (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most
> restrictive) would be fine.
> 2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved
Robert Brenstein wrote:
> Great to know your plans and thanks for keeping the files, Mark.
> However, your note proves that we need to have a provision to keep
> them elsewhere in the future, although our esteem honcho may relax as
> he does not have to maintain the archive in the foreseeable futu
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Robert Brenstein wrote:
BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and
may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the
latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but
full p
A couple of points on the license-type debate:
1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain
(least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most
restrictive) would be fine.
2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application
with th
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Robert Brenstein wrote:
BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and
may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the
latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but
full p
Robert Brenstein wrote:
> BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and
> may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the
> latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but
> full packages for download.
I would advocate that RunRev provide
Robert Brenstein wrote:
Well, there is a consensus that the IDE should be available for
downloads separately from engines, so you are inline with others
here. However, there were a couple suggestions to have engines
(separately from IDE) for downloads from SourceForge. This will allow
us to k
Robert Brenstein wrote:
> Well, there is a consensus that the IDE should be available for
> downloads separately from engines, so you are inline with others
> here. However, there were a couple suggestions to have engines
> (separately from IDE) for downloads from SourceForge. This will allow
> us
The engine is available at RunRev.com, and since releases of the engine and
releases of the MC IDE will not likely coincide it seems simpler to keep the
download small by not including the engine.
Additionally, keeping the open source IDE distro separate from the
proprietary engine clarifies potent
David Bovill wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>>> Has anyone checked:
>>>
>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>>
>>
>> I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to
>> libraries.
>>
>> What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE?
>>
>
> GNU us
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Has anyone checked:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to
libraries.
What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE?
GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue
Ray G. Miller wrote:
> If the new and improved "MC IDE" is created and implemented as
> envisioned, then Rev will probably include it as an alternative "IDE".
> This would be the best of both possible worlds.
They might, but rather than increase the size of the download I suspect such
support to
Ray G. Miller wrote:
>> David Bovill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The simple
>>> story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
>>> code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with th
From: David Bovill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Robert Brenstein wrote:
>>
>>Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth
>>the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option
>>to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop
>>downloading. We do not
From: Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Bovill wrote:
The simple
story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE
David Bovill wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Robert Brenstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth
>>> the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option
>>> to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop
>>> downloa
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Robert Brenstein wrote:
Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth
the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option
to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop
downloading. We do not have to have them, but...
A l
Robert Brenstein wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> David Bovill wrote:
>>
>>> The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute
>>> the open source
>>> code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm I had never considered including
Richard Gaskin wrote:
David Bovill wrote:
The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute
the open source
code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE
distribution. It woul
David Bovill wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> David Bovill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The simple
>>> story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
>>> code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm I had never considered including
Richard Gaskin wrote:
David Bovill wrote:
The simple
story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE
distribution. It wou
David Bovill wrote:
> The simple
> story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
> code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE
distribution. It would be convenient,
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Monte Goulding wrote:
I don't think LGPL is really inteded for this kind of thing. It's more for
libraries that can be included in commercial apps without breaking the
license or making the commercial app open source.
The difference is that with LGPL you have no problem distr
37 matches
Mail list logo
