Italo Vignoli schrieb:
Freeware is usually proprietary but free of charge, and belongs to the
same category of shareware (in relations with the software license, as
it usually adopts an EULA similar to MS Office or IBM Symphony).
So it is, and that's nothing we can accept on the repository.
On 07/08/2011 12:50 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
Freeware is usually proprietary but free of charge, and belongs to the
same category of shareware (in relations with the software license, as
it usually adopts an EULA similar to MS Office or IBM Symphony).
So it is, and
On 7/4/11 8:07 PM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
I am not happy with a solution excluding providers of Freeware / Public
domain. It's not our strategy to contribute freeware, but if a
contributer wants to share his creation without licensing, but as Public
Domian, we should not affront him.
We
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
We should incentivate licensing of extensions.
Full ACK, if LGPL and CC-BY are included.
Kind regards
Rainer
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List
Hi Italo
Le 2011-07-07 05:08, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
We should incentivate licensing of extensions.
I am not sure what this means. Does this mean that Freeware authors
would be give a nudge (light push) to agree to (as Rainer suggests)
LGPL and CC-BY licenses? And not allow them to list as
Hi Marc, *,
Am Donnerstag, 7. Juli 2011, 16:54:29 schrieb Marc Paré:
Le 2011-06-22 14:59, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Marc, Rainer, *,
Am Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2011, 14:55:02 schrieb Marc Paré:
Le 2011-06-22 06:04, Rainer Bielefeld a écrit :
Marc Paré schrieb:
Is this to be run along
Le 2011-07-07 12:06, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
On 7/7/11 4:41 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I am not sure what this means. Does this mean that Freeware authors
would be give a nudge (light push) to agree to (as Rainer suggests)
LGPL and CC-BY licenses? And not allow them to list as Freeware?
I would
Hi,
and I believe I have been a little careless using term freeware. I do
not want a platform for free of charges software, but for really
free software, what means with free software license.
Rainer
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Posting
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke ma...@gmx.de
GPL|GPL - GNU General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
LGPL|LGPL - GNU Lesser General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
BSD|BSD License
Hi Andrea
Le 2011-07-04 02:46, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantkema...@gmx.de
GPL|GPL - GNU General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
LGPL|LGPL - GNU Lesser General Public License|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
On 7/4/11 8:46 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
No, I think Freeware (besides the typo in the corresponding link) must
be removed, since it goes against the stated policy (or to the closest
thing we have, i.e., RMS's statement on the website).
IANAL, but freeware is not a license, while we should
Hi Italo, Marc, Andrea, *,
Am Montag, 4. Juli 2011, 11:43:37 schrieb Italo Vignoli:
On 7/4/11 8:46 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
No, I think Freeware (besides the typo in the corresponding link) must
be removed, since it goes against the stated policy (or to the closest
thing we have, i.e.,
Italo Vignoli schrieb:
IANAL, but freeware is not a license, while we should only list
extensions with a free software license. People using a proprietary
license are - of course - free to use such a license, but we cannot
neither suggest nor promote their extensions on TDF web sites.
Hello,
Hello,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
I changed the field, in which the contributor choose the license, from
drop down to
radio format. I added also a warning text to the description of the field:
http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1848120/
A multi-choices list would be better.
Some
Hi Olivier, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 12:37:13 schrieb Olivier R.:
Hello,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
I changed the field, in which the contributor choose the license, from
drop down to
radio format. I added also a warning text to the description of the
field:
Le 2011-07-03 08:45, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Andrea, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 14:13:56 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Andreas Mantke:
Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 19:02:42 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
For usability, I'd prefer not to have a default here. Otherwise, people
may overlook the field
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32 schrieb Marc Paré:
(...)
Suggestion:
Could we order the list in the preference that we would prefer? If some
submitters are unsure of the licence they may then adopt the licence
listed at the top of this list. We could then have the least
Andreas,
I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow proprietary
extensions. Could you please disable this option at least for the moment?
Thank you,
Charles.
Le 3 juil. 2011, 5:41 PM, Andreas Mantke ma...@gmx.de a écrit :
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32
Hello Andreas,
2011/7/3 Andreas Mantke ma...@gmx.de
Hi Charles, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 18:24:37 schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
Andreas,
I think indeed the SC is rather unsure whether we should allow
proprietary
extensions. Could you please disable this option at least for the
Le 2011-07-03 11:40, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Marc, *,
Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 16:57:32 schrieb Marc Paré:
(...)
Suggestion:
Could we order the list in the preference that we would prefer? If some
submitters are unsure of the licence they may then adopt the licence
listed at the top of
On 7/3/11 11:01 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I would vote not to reposit (if that is indeed a word) proprietary
extensions and templates etc. Let's keep everything as open as possible.
We can list proprietary extensions perhaps on a separate page. This
would still offer our users a full complement of
On 07/03/2011 02:40 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 7/3/11 11:01 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
I would vote not to reposit (if that is indeed a word) proprietary
extensions and templates etc. Let's keep everything as open as possible.
We can list proprietary extensions perhaps on a separate page. This
On 7/4/11 12:09 AM, C. Olofson wrote:
The reason I say this is that non-free software is not anathema to F/OSS.
Of course not, but I would be very careful because we can alienate FSF
and other TDF supporters.
--
Italo Vignoli
italo.vign...@gmail.com
mobile +39.348.5653829
VoIP
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.comwrote:
On 7/4/11 12:09 AM, C. Olofson wrote:
The reason I say this is that non-free software is not anathema to F/OSS.
Of course not, but I would be very careful because we can alienate FSF and
other TDF supporters.
By
24 matches
Mail list logo
