of either disingenousness or carelessness.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
r code to be included.
You can't get much more implicit than that.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
I am sure the former is false, and I
wouldn't believe the latter without specific proof (which probably wouldn't
even be worth getting).
Please point me at these statements of fact.
John Macdonald said his company's lawyers were fine with it in the thread
on p5p, Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED].
o. What's the problem there? I've spent
much of my life rewriting prose after editors get done with it. That is
part of the process. Or, to borrow from ESR, "plan to throw one [or more]
away."
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source
n. I only assert that I have a different one.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
should
not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
entity, based on the GPL
At 0:59 -0500 2001.01.09, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, unless we stick to the same licensing scheme we have today for perl,
which, like it or not, has served Perl very, very well.
As it turns out, this isn't an RFC under consideration by Larry, AFAIK
same goal -- free software -- and as you
said, having the GPL on perl has helped perl and its community tremendously.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
violating the letter.
They violated neither the spirit nor the letter.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http
At 15.27 + 01.14.2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
violating the letter
ink this is the case with _everything_
related to this phase of things. Rule #1 still applies. At least, this is
my understanding.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
at all, and returns
useful data sometime this year...
It does, and has for some time, so feel free to be thrilled. HTH.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
in light of that idea.
Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or simply
don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
13 matches
Mail list logo
