Stephen M. Webb:
That social contract is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt.
Stephen M. Webb:
The GPL is not a social contract, it is a legal agreement defining
the terms of use and distribution of a work of software.
I thought it would be well understood written that way, but I can be
Hi,
What I don't understand is:
2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses.
There is absolutely
* Stephen M. Webb (stephen.w...@canonical.com) wrote:
On 12/28/2014 09:50 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
But there's a problem with that, which is it overrides the social contract
with people to code to belong to the world
not to a group of individuals; making the system abusive by
Stephen M. Webb:
I think you will find that there is no conflict between any vaguely
defined social contract and the requirements for acceptable code
submission to a software project.
That social contract is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt.
David Alan Gilbert:
I don't think any reading
I have removed most of the CC: on this discussion because I don't believe such
spam is appropriate (and it fills my
mailbox with list rejections).
On 12/29/2014 09:54 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
Stephen M. Webb:
I think you will find that there is no conflict between any vaguely
defined
Hi, this is Alberto; who is currently coordinating Ubuntu papercuts quality.
I wanted to bring up a topic which I have been thinking about five
months from now, and after speaking with the appropriate people and
deliberating about it; I conclude it really needs to change.
Canonical
On 12/28/2014 09:50 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
But there's a problem with that, which is it overrides the social contract
with people to code to belong to the world
not to a group of individuals; making the system abusive by design.
It's like telling that an autocracy is better
