In message
, David
Kirkby writes:
>On 8 December 2012 08:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> And one other detail most people overlook, is that the default GPL text
>> gives any users the right to use any later version of the GPL license
>> instead of the one you copy&pasted. This has on
On 8 December 2012 08:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> And one other detail most people overlook, is that the default GPL text
> gives any users the right to use any later version of the GPL license
> instead of the one you copy&pasted. This has only happened once but
> it had ground-shaking reper
On 8 December 2012 01:09, Chris Albertson wrote:
> BTW you CAN make as much money as you like with GPL'd software. Just look
> at all Android phones. They contain Linux and a pile of other GPL'd
> software. Apple is using BSD Unix in there products.
That's an important point, and something th
In message
, Chris
Albertson writes:
>Many authors ike GPL because they figure "I wrote this and I'm giving this
>away for free, I don't want some other guy to take it, change the title and
>claim it as his own work and charge money for it."
> BSD on the other hand allows it The Univ
Yes, GPL is just one of many Open Source license types. Others include
1) GPL (may only be used for other GPL'd projects)
2) "BSD" style (allows use for any purpose, buy you can't sue the author)
3) Public Domain (totally unrestricted use)
4) Various Creative Commons versions some allow comercial
On 12/7/2012 5:26 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code
licensed under the GPL. And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many
occasions. And I'm sure he would also disagree on my definition of
open source
You're confusing the two. Stallman promot
Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code licensed under
the GPL. And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many occasions. And I'm sure
he would also disagree on my definition of open source
Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not qualify as
'open
Not by the most commonly accepted definition:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
The no discrimination clause is interesting. That explains the bizarre
"white power" linux distribution.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go
On 12/7/2012 4:08 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by
end-user. The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or
similar licenses. Back in the mainframe days most code was
proprietary but distributed to customer in the form of so
that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by end-user.
The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or similar licenses.
Back in the mainframe days most code was proprietary but distributed to
customer in the form of source code to be compiled by the end user.
On 7 December 2012 15:00, Scott McGrath wrote:>
> What most people think about when they hear about open source is code
> released under variants of the GPL which require that code released to the
> public built with GPL tools be made available for no more than the cost of
> distribution ie yo
GPL and Open Source are frequently confused technically any code where the
source code is available to the customer is open source. As in open for
inspection, under terms agreed to in the license.
What most people think about when they hear about open source is code released
under variants of
We need a real, Open Source GPSDO that uses an open source tool chain.
Cost is not the issue it is the ability to modify and redistribute the
modified copy that is what's needed.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Murray Greenman wrote:
> Keenan,
> You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50.
My mistake was inferring that my GPSDO software was open source. It's
absolutely not. It is proprietary to me and written in AVR assembler. There
is no reference anywhere in it to any libraries from any other source.
So don't get too excited. You can still see what's inside it for $50, but
you
The Open Source tool chain is generally GCC, its libraries,
and debuggers.
Closed source use of the GCC tool chain is done all the time,
but there are numerous gotchas that catch the unwary. Some of
the libraries are covered by the Lesser GPL license, and as
such are available for that kind of u
vid Kirkby
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:56 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
On 6 December 2012 20:33, Chuck Harris wrote:
> If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource
> tool chain, and libraries, and then
GPL violations are a good thing. That is how the FSF makes money. ;-)
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Cisco-settles-with-FSF-on-GPL-violations/
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bi
On 6 December 2012 20:33, Chuck Harris wrote:
> If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource
> tool chain, and libraries, and then is keeping his source
> and executables closed, he may be in violation of
> the GNU licenses.
>
> -Chuck Harris
According to the web page
http://www.qsl.net
If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource
tool chain, and libraries, and then is keeping his source
and executables closed, he may be in violation of
the GNU licenses.
-Chuck Harris
David Kirkby wrote:
On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman wrote:
Keenan,
You can see my GPSDO s
On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman wrote:
> Keenan,
> You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and
> executables. The executables alone are $20.
>
> See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm
Murray ,
There's a huge difference between open-source
Keenan,
You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and
executables. The executables alone are $20.
See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm
While this design does not use a Kalmann filter, it has pretty good
holdover, and you can see how the phase de
21 matches
Mail list logo
