> At 12:29 AM 1/5/01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm beginning to loathe software licenses in a *big* way, and I'm a half
> > > step away from saying to hell with it all and going fully public domain.
> > > (Or at least pushing for it, as I do
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> > I personally think that the relying on LGPL'ed code is completely
> > reasonable. Some will disagree, so we need to come to a consensus on this
> > as a community.
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. What are the consequences for t
At 12:29 AM 1/5/01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm beginning to loathe software licenses in a *big* way, and I'm a half
> > step away from saying to hell with it all and going fully public domain.
> > (Or at least pushing for it, as I don't control
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Liceses. Bletch.
> Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
> unfortunate necessity in many cases.
And the thieves who steal the intellectual property and claim it as their
own turf in the first place.
What are we ta
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm beginning to loathe software licenses in a *big* way, and I'm a half
> step away from saying to hell with it all and going fully public domain.
> (Or at least pushing for it, as I don't control perl's licensing terms)
Public domain has it's own t
