On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:30 PM, rjf wrote:
> The point is, if you don't claim authorship, someone else might, and (for
> example)
> restrict access, even by you.
>
> So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that others
> may
> use it under whatever restrictions you determine
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:22 AM, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:34:38 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, rjf wrote:
>> > So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that
>> > others
>> > may
>> > use it under whatever restrictions
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:34:38 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, rjf >
> wrote:
> > So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that
> others
> > may
> > use it under whatever restrictions you determine. Personally, I find
> the
> > MIT
If you are writing code as part of your work in a French public
institution, for example the Université Paris-Sud, then the copyright
holder of the code you write is the University and you should get
authorization from the University to license it under the GPL (I suppose
you can assume that th
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, rjf wrote:
> So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that others
> may
> use it under whatever restrictions you determine. Personally, I find the
> MIT or
> Berkeley licenses much better than GPL, since they let anyone use the code
> for an
The point is, if you don't claim authorship, someone else might, and (for
example)
restrict access, even by you.
So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that others
may
use it under whatever restrictions you determine. Personally, I find the
MIT or
Berkeley licenses much
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
>> But if there were a contributor agreement I
>> could give the Sage project permission to copy / use my code under its
>> license without explicitly putting my name on it
>
> The problem
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
> But if there were a contributor agreement I
> could give the Sage project permission to copy / use my code under its
> license without explicitly putting my name on it
The problem here is very simple: which legal entity would be on the
opposite
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> There is no contributor license agreement. Every file must be GPLv2+
> licensed. If you start a new file you have copyright on that module whether
> you put your name in there or not; But we need the GPLv2+ statement to
> distribute it as par
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:16:11 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> I don't want to
>> claim copyright ownership under my own name
>
>
>
> you cannot do that legally, and in some countries of the world this would
> even lead to a si
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:16:11 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> I don't want to
> claim copyright ownership under my own name
>
you cannot do that legally, and in some countries of the world this would
even lead to a situation where your contribution cannot be used at all. I'm
guessin
There is no contributor license agreement. Every file must be GPLv2+
licensed. If you start a new file you have copyright on that module whether
you put your name in there or not; But we need the GPLv2+ statement to
distribute it as part of Sage.
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:16:11 PM UTC+2,
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Erik Bray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, nor do I even
> pretend like I know anything about copyrights or licenses beyond what
> I can read on Wikipedia.
>
> So I'm very confused about the policy for copyrighting any work I
> c
13 matches
Mail list logo
