On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:18:05PM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Has any FOSS developer ever been found liable (or even sued)?
Not that I have any objections to this plan but it might be worth
considering that it's much easier to sue a single entity then it is to
file a tort against a few
of Perl 5?
Does a compilation copyright exist even if it isn't asserted or registered?
Wouldn't the Pumpking of each Perl distribution be its compilation copyright
owner?
Can you name any other open source projects that make use of compilation
copyrights?
Why does TPF or any open source project
holding the copyrights really matter? AFAIK -
The only value in having a single party holding _all_ the copyrights is
to be able to change the licensing.
Cheers,
-J
--
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 06:24:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 02:21:38PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington
copyright, that is the
copyright on the distributed collection of code. The individual files
say Copyright The Perl Foundation to reflect that fact. Individual
copyrights on included pieces of code are irrelevant from perspective
of the distribution (except that the contributors agree to give
The Perl Foundation to reflect that fact. Individual
copyrights on included pieces of code are irrelevant from perspective
of the distribution (except that the contributors agree to give TPF
the license to distribute them).
Sounds reasonable and well thought out.
This next statement
Has any FOSS developer ever been found liable (or even sued)?
Not that I have any objections to this plan but it might be worth
considering that it's much easier to sue a single entity then it is to
file a tort against a few tens or hundreds of contributors.
Yes, the guy who wrote an open
Hi,
I keep running accros files that at the top of the file say they are
copyrighted to individual people, then adding stuff to the code as surely
many others have. Am I right in thinking that everything is supposed to be
Copyright The Perl Foundation? This is what I've done with any new
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 02:21:38PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Hi,
I keep running accros files that at the top of the file say they are
copyrighted to individual people, then adding stuff to the code as surely
many others have. Am I right in thinking that everything is supposed to
On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:42, Will Coleda wrote:
I was under the impression that for any code to be included in the
parrot repository, that the copyright had to be assigned to the Perl
Foundation. But there are exceptions to this throughout the
repository, even in core files like imcc/main.c
I was under the impression that for any code to be included in the
parrot repository, that the copyright had to be assigned to the Perl
Foundation. But there are exceptions to this throughout the
repository, even in core files like imcc/main.c (Copyright Melvin
Smith). We have a file with
I was under the impression that for any code to be included in the
parrot repository, that the copyright had to be assigned to the Perl
Foundation. But there are exceptions to this throughout the
repository, even in core files like imcc/main.c (Copyright Melvin
Smith). We have a file with
decision was about
copyrights, but at some point it was a choice of Artistic, LGPL, or some other.
The only license I really have a problem with is the plain GPL, which I don't
think Perl uses anyway. When someone makes a decision, or informs me
of the existing policy, I'll be happy to commit a header
At 12:16 on 07/10/2003 PDT, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:56 AM -0700 7/10/03, Robert Spier wrote:
s/Yet Another Society/The Perl Foundation/g
The Perl Foundation is just a dba of YAS. The name should, unless
things have changed, be YAS.
We're generally encouraging the name
that there are many files with copyrights of
when this is determined..., while some files have a
copyright of Yet Another Society. Seems like they should
all be Yet Another, or none should be...
--
Dan
--it's
s/Yet Another Society/The Perl Foundation/g
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
All --
I noticed that there are many files with copyrights of
when this is determined..., while some files have a
copyright of Yet Another Society. Seems like they should
all be Yet Another, or none should be...
wrote:
s/Yet Another Society/The Perl Foundation/g
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
All --
I noticed that there are many files with copyrights of
when this is determined..., while some files have a
copyright of Yet Another Society. Seems like they should
all be Yet Another, or none should
At 11:56 AM -0700 7/10/03, Robert Spier wrote:
s/Yet Another Society/The Perl Foundation/g
The Perl Foundation is just a dba of YAS. The name should, unless
things have changed, be YAS.
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
All --
I noticed that there are many files with copyrights of
when this is determined
All --
I noticed that there are many files with copyrights of
when this is determined..., while some files have a
copyright of Yet Another Society. Seems like they should
all be Yet Another, or none should be...
Regards,
-- Gregor
--
Gregor Purdy[EMAIL PROTECTED
Just a quick reminder:
Everything that gets checked into the perl 6 repository *must* have its
ownership either explicitly transferred to YAS (and covered under the
license and suchlike things mentioned in the README file) or explicitly
state that it is covered by the current license *and*
19 matches
Mail list logo
