[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: GPL Liscensing on New Release: What Gives?
But by relegating it to "flames" you are guilty of politics. An
appropriate name would be "licensing" as that is the _issue_. When I buy
something, I want to know all the details about the agreement. As such (if
one is more than just a propeller head), the discussions are very valid.
To not see the validity of discussing a "license" applied to a "product",
or to avoid it, is perhaps a little funny business going on.
The questions are: Why not change to BSD-style licensing for OSKit? And is
OSKit in the public domain by virtue of the public funding of the project?
Tony
> From: David G. Andersen <danderse@cs.utah.edu>
> Okay, I think that we've gotten a bit far-afield from the purpose of
> oskit-users, which is ostensably to discuss the oskit itself, and not
> discuss the license of the oskit.
>
> Therefore, there's a new list in town: oskit-flames@flux.cs.utah.edu
>
> If you want to flame, or have content-empty discussions about the GPL
> vs the BSD license, please send them to oskit-flames@flux.cs.utah.edu.
>
> To subscribe, send mail to oskit-flames-request@flux.cs.utah.edu.
>
> Lo and Behold, Tony Taylor said:
> > Wouldn't PT Barnum be proud!
> >
> > Tony
>
> I'm interpreting this as a "please subscribe me to oskit-flames,
> Dave" message.
>
> Let me reiterate this a bit. The majority of the oskit developers,
> and many of the serious users of the oskit, are on oskit-users. It
> would be very nice to keep the signal to noise ratio high on this list
> without having to start doing things like moderating the list. This
> GPL thread needs to migrate to -flames.
>
> Sorry for the insertion of administrivia.
>
> -dave
>
> --
> work: danderse@cs.utah.edu me: angio@pobox.com
> University of Utah http://www.angio.net/
> Computer Science - Flux Research Group