C
Chuck
Re Request for assessment thread -- this was posted there but you may not
have seen it for all the posts...
Hi GG
Early in this thread Greg mentioned "rights" to the code. Greg and I both
feel the GPL is appropriate. Essentially the GPL allows anyone to freely use
the code but with restrictions. Below is a brief overview of the concept of
the GPL, links to the exact terms FAQ etc appear at the end of this message:
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you
can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that
you know you can do these things.
***
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights."
Since this code is already de facto freely available (anyone can access it
in a public newsgroup), the GPL makes sense as a way to protect the code from
being unfairly "privatised" by some third party, allowing people to
collaborate on it, improve it, adapt it to their own purposes, etc.
Are you agreeable to this code being covered by the GPL?
Here’s a link to a copy of the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt)
and a link to information about the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/).
Chuck
have seen it for all the posts...
Hi GG
Early in this thread Greg mentioned "rights" to the code. Greg and I both
feel the GPL is appropriate. Essentially the GPL allows anyone to freely use
the code but with restrictions. Below is a brief overview of the concept of
the GPL, links to the exact terms FAQ etc appear at the end of this message:
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you
can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that
you know you can do these things.
***
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights."
Since this code is already de facto freely available (anyone can access it
in a public newsgroup), the GPL makes sense as a way to protect the code from
being unfairly "privatised" by some third party, allowing people to
collaborate on it, improve it, adapt it to their own purposes, etc.
Are you agreeable to this code being covered by the GPL?
Here’s a link to a copy of the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt)
and a link to information about the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/).
Chuck