Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > In this case
> > there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> > contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> > how the code THEY submit should be used.
> >
> > I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> > wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> > they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> > as in the past with other contributed code.
> >
> > Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> > derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> > then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> > at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> > have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> > project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> > then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> > there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
> >
> > Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> > want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> > then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> > contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> > on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> > This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> > they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> > *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> > whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> > they wont anyway.
> >
> > This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> > free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> > not to use it!
> >
> > I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> > mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> > either all or in part to build the project.
> >
> > Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> > become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> > giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> > i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> > AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> > must be free also.
>
> That is actually a pretty good argument for having the code be public domain.
> However, the code could be X11 licensed with almost the same effect (the X11
> license just also explicitly tells you your rights to the code and protects
> the original creator against legal harm) or even 3-clause BSD (same as the X11
> license except you can't use the author's name in advertisements). The primary
> argument against public domain is that it removes Rob's distinction as creator
> of the code and people feel that that is unfair to his hard work.
Hi there,
Yes i agree that Robs work should be reflected in any project that
comes out of the source.
BTW, what does the "D." stand for?
Take care,
Al
E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
