On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
Hi Hannah!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
...
Saying something like:
Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
is quite similar to saying:
Windows != Microsoft
In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be equal but they are
certainly related. Also in both cases, the former
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
| give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
| they don't require
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
The BSD license promotes
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
it, such that there will be
11 matches
Mail list logo
