Is it too much to ask of any one who wants to use a file / piece of logic
in separation to be bothered enough to actually try and figure out the
licensing situation by checking the copying file in the root of the project?
If it's too much then perhaps the logic wasn't that valuable to them after
a
Hi, to me there are (at least) two categories of JavaScript here that
need to be addressed. When I look at the page source for a Web app
(specifically, picolisp-gosper), I see two things:
(1) JavaScript which is loaded straight out of the files that come with
the release. As near as I can tell, th
..@gmx.de]
To: picolisp@software-lab.de
Sent: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:04:29 +0700
Subject: Re: Unclear licensing
don't let yourself (or others) be confused by freedom.
same with the term "free trade agreement". it is contradictory in
itself. if you think about it for a moment, "free tra
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
> confusion and uncertainty.) The JavaScript is a special case because
> 90%+ of the people who will see/use the JavaScript will receive it from
> a Web server and, if they inspect the source of the JavaScript, will
> only see "Cop
don't let yourself (or others) be confused by freedom.
same with the term "free trade agreement". it is contradictory in
itself. if you think about it for a moment, "free trade" don't need an
"agreement".
the absence of agreements, rules and disclaimers is enough.
regards
05k4r
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the
> one-liner
> > approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
> > server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is
> freely
> > licensed code. Code wi
*Actions over Words:*
Step 1. Patch the latest download so it contains the license information
locally.
Step 2.?
Step 3. Profit!
Hint: ? is finding a new place to host and go to 1.
2017-03-13 19:09 GMT+01:00 Bruno Franco :
> I think that what Christopher means is that adding a licenc
recommend *at least* putting licensing
>> > information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the one-liner
>> > approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
>> > server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is freely
>>
it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is freely
> > licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than proprietary
> > code for practical purposes.
>
> Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the problem is. I
> don't
> care
l that it is freely
> licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than proprietary
> code for practical purposes.
Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the problem is. I don't
care what others do with the code. It is free!
♪♫ Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:p
nformation on the JavaScript files, even if only using the one-liner
approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is freely
licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than proprietary
code for practica
m: Jakob Eriksson [mailto:ja...@aurorasystems.eu]
To: picolisp@software-lab.de
Sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:23:22 +0100
Subject: Re: Unclear licensing
The middle road is something like:
/* Copyright 2017 Author. License: XXX */
or
/* Copyright 2017 Author. SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
But there is NO REQUIREMENT for such a thing.
What I do when incorporating a source file which has no license or
copyright information at the top:
I just
On 03/10/2017 11:18 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
>> Hello list. I'm having a lot of fun with picolisp, doing practice
>> problems and working with different codes.
>
> Great! :)
I'll be uploading all my own codes for git access as soon as my project
request clears Savannah N
Hi Christopher,
> Hello list. I'm having a lot of fun with picolisp, doing practice
> problems and working with different codes.
Great! :)
> One concern I have though is
> that most of the files in the Picolisp 16.12 release do not have proper
> license labeling. For legal safety and to avoid c
Hello list. I'm having a lot of fun with picolisp, doing practice
problems and working with different codes. One concern I have though is
that most of the files in the Picolisp 16.12 release do not have proper
license labeling. For legal safety and to avoid confusion, we need to
have at least *ever
16 matches
Mail list logo
