On Ma, 15 mar 11, 14:00:58, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[snip MIT license]
> Essentially it says:
> 1. you can do anything you want with the code, but,
> 2. you don't own it, and you can't change the terms
> 3. you have to include the above in your code
You forgot the "no guarantees" clause and the "
If you nose around in packages.debian.org, you'll find various copyright
statements for packages that include code from multiple sources. Here's
one example (for the Gimp):
The GIMP source is available at ftp.gimp.org:/pub/gimp.
Copyrights for GIMP-related packages:
gimp
-
Copyright
Nate Bargmann wrote:
To the OP: IANAL, etc.
My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
clause license in that respect? If so, then licensing under the GPL3 is
likely legal. If not, then that open
On 2011-03-15 09:45:51 Nick Douma wrote:
>Basically for my own files:
>
>
>
Yes.
>for the original authors files:
>
>
>
Yes. Although, you might also want to add the GPL header. It's not necessary
until you start modifying the file; but doing it now does no harm other than
making the diff ag
On 2011-03-15 09:26:32 Nate Bargmann wrote:
>My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
>allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
>clause license in that respect? If so, then licensing under the GPL3 is
>likely legal. If not, then that ope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 03/15/2011 03:26 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> To the OP: IANAL, etc.
>
> My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
> allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
> clause license in that res
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 03/15/2011 02:21 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> So basically I add two lines for source files that I modified,
>
> Two things: Your copyright attribution, and a reference to the license (GPL).
>
> This may take more or less than two l
To the OP: IANAL, etc.
My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
clause license in that respect? If so, then licensing under the GPL3 is
likely legal. If not, then that opens an entire can of lega
On 2011-03-15 07:22:50 Nick Douma wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 03/14/2011 06:15 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On 2011-03-14 11:12:35 Nick Douma wrote:
>>> I have a question about developing software and licenses. I have taken a
>>> MIT-licensed library (https://github.com/peej/tonic), and modified and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 03/14/2011 06:15 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On 2011-03-14 11:12:35 Nick Douma wrote:
>> I have a question about developing software and licenses. I have taken a
>> MIT-licensed library (https://github.com/peej/tonic), and modified and
On 2011-03-14 11:12:35 Nick Douma wrote:
>I have a question about developing software and licenses. I have taken a
>MIT-licensed library (https://github.com/peej/tonic), and modified and
>extended it. The result is a REST library for PowerDNS, which I would
>like to release under GPL. However, it i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I have a question about developing software and licenses. I have taken a
MIT-licensed library (https://github.com/peej/tonic), and modified and
extended it. The result is a REST library for PowerDNS, which I would
like to release under GPL. How
12 matches
Mail list logo
