Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pulic domain also says do with it whatever you like. I really don't
know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on
the country you live in.
public domain is a meaningless term in many countries (it doesn't have
any meaning in courts,
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:40:00PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
| Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason
| to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume,
| but that may have it's
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:45:31AM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote:
Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
public domain is a meaningless term in many countries (it doesn't have
any meaning in courts, which in turn means that you keep all the rights
that copyright law gives you).
In many
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
[bsd vs. GPL]
Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make a new
thread for this.
I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses
versus public domain.
What does the ISC license actually
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes
forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free.
If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which
take BSD code (network stack i hear)
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
[bsd vs. GPL]
Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make a new
thread for this.
I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:44:07AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses
versus public domain.
Pulic domain also says do with it whatever you like. I really don't
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pieter Verberne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything
like this in a file's header? :
# This file is in public domain
or even better:
# public domain
So IIRC requires the full license? That's a
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 01:46:49PM +0200, Almir Karic wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pieter Verberne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything
like this in a file's header? :
# This file is in public domain
or even
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
But in general, we choose to remain known as author.
That is our privilege for the files we created or modified
extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your
decision.
Uhm.. to remain known as
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
If you put anything in public domain, you'll give up your copyright. So
the next person te distribute your software is allowed to remove your
name from the credits list. I can imagine this sounds like a problem for
some
On May 4, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Pieter Verberne wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
[bsd vs. GPL]
Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make
a new
thread for this.
I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:09:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license
(also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship.
Right.
As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play
with. The only thing I
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:29:01PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
But in general, we choose to remain known as author.
That is our privilege for the files we created or modified
extensively. Whatever you choose to do with
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:09:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license
(also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship.
Right.
As an example, I like to
On 2008-05-04, Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough?
Anyone can then change the contents of the URL later on. For example:
domain expires, evil scammers grab it and publish a new license at the
same URL requiring payment for
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 04:31:11PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-05-04, Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough?
Anyone can then change the contents of the URL later on. For example:
domain expires, evil scammers grab
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:12:04AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law.
True (in the Nederlands), I recently wrote a letter to the Ministry
of Justice about dutch copyright law wich does not give an author
the possibility to put a work
Marco Peereboom wrote:
public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of
copyright. If it's public domain, then you and everyone else can do
*anything* to it or
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 07:03:09PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
(but going by your name you are just being dutch!).
I don't understand.. Yes I'm dutch, is this a joke/saying?
Yes and no :-)
The dutch are notoriously known to argue for arguments sake. That is
what I was getting at.
Beware
On 5/4/08, Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason
to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume,
but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is
keeping copyright worth putting the
On 5/4/08, Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pulic domain also says do with it whatever you like. I really don't
know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on
the country you live in. I'm a minimalist is some respects, and I think
you should not put anything in a
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:32:43PM +0300, Lars Nood??n wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of
copyright. If
The dutch are notoriously known to argue for arguments sake. That is
what I was getting at.
Come on. Only those of french descent do.
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
| As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play
| with. The only thing I demand is credit for that piece of code. The
| reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I
| might
Pieter == Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pieter I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses
Pieter versus public domain.
public domain is not a legal license in some countries. In other
words, you can't totally give away all your rights. So, an explicit
On 5/4/08 12:15 PM, Pieter Verberne wrote:
But wouldn't it be just great to put anything
like this in a file's header? :
# This file is in public domain
or even better:
# public domain
When there is no name there is nobody who can testify it is in the
public domain.
Don't forget: Basically
2008/5/4 debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a
seriously curious guy wanting to know.
Which is why you stay anonym and don't follow the discussion. Looks
like trolling to me.
OTOH a non-troll would have the knowledge of
On 5/4/08 8:37 PM, Lars NoodC)n wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of
copyright. If it's public domain, then you and
On 5/3/08, debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes
forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free.
If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which
take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made
debian developer wrote:
Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a
seriously curious guy wanting to know.
That's what all the trolls say.
If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which
take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
Hello,
Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a
seriously curious guy wanting to know.
I searched google but could not find any clear explanation. Please
point me in the right direction if this has
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:22 PM, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But today, my linux boxes at work can authenticate using kerberos. This
is a big win for me.
That is - authenticate to AD using kerberos. Sorry for any confusion.
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
I have a few questions(no, not which license is better.:):
It all depends on what you want to do. At the very basic level, the GPL
gives freedom to the end
Jacob Meuser ha scritto:
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
the question is, how is porting free software to non-free platforms
ok, but providing easier ways to install non-free software on free
platforms wrong?
With 2 doubleclick you
Hi,
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes
forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free.
If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which
take BSD code (network stack i
36 matches
Mail list logo
