FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-29-2007, 06:16 PM
Eric Belanger
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
>>>
>>> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now
>>> this file has been removed from the source.
>>>
>>> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a
>>> link to the license url)?
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>
>> Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
>>
>
> That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no license
> whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.
>
>

for the license field use 'customublic domain' and add the license file
as Travis suggested.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 06:17 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
>
> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now
> this file has been removed from the source.
>
> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a

> link to the license url)?
>
> -Andy

Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?

That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Damir Perisa
 
Default license for sqlite3

Thursday 29 November 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
| On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
| > On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
| >> On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
| >>> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
| >>>
| >>> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license
| >>> file. now this file has been removed from the source.
| >>>
| >>> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file
| >>> with a link to the license url)?
| >>>
| >>> -Andy
| >>
| >> Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
| >
| > That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no
| > license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.
|
| for the license field use 'customublic domain' and add the
| license file as Travis suggested.

why is PD not a standard licence entry for us? it should not be
custom, since it is a quite standard way to licence something.

- D

--
.`..`..`..`..`..`. .


><((((>

<)))><
<)))><

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 07:09 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
> Thursday 29 November 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
> | On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
> | > On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> | >> On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
> | >>> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
> | >>>
> | >>> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license
> | >>> file. now this file has been removed from the source.
> | >>>
> | >>> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file
> | >>> with a link to the license url)?
> | >>>
> | >>> -Andy
> | >>
> | >> Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
> | >
> | > That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no
> | > license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.
> |
> | for the license field use 'customublic domain' and add the
> | license file as Travis suggested.
>
> why is PD not a standard licence entry for us? it should not be
> custom, since it is a quite standard way to licence something.

Give me some standard text and I'll throw it in there.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 07:22 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
> > why is PD not a standard licence entry for us? it should not be
> > custom, since it is a quite standard way to licence something.
>
> Give me some standard text and I'll throw it in there.

Um, no

We went over this somewhere.

There's no such thing as a public domain license. It flat out doesn't
work. Not only is it not a license, but public domain means different
things in different countries. From the "WTFPL" faq:

* Isn't this license basically public domain?
There is no such thing as "putting a work in the public domain", you
America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies
with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether
someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled
to put his own work in the public domain.

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 07:51 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Nov 29, 2007 2:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
> > > why is PD not a standard licence entry for us? it should not be
> > > custom, since it is a quite standard way to licence something.
> >
> > Give me some standard text and I'll throw it in there.
>
> Um, no
>
> We went over this somewhere.
>
> There's no such thing as a public domain license. It flat out doesn't
> work. Not only is it not a license, but public domain means different
> things in different countries. From the "WTFPL" faq:
>
> * Isn't this license basically public domain?
> There is no such thing as "putting a work in the public domain", you
> America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies
> with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether
> someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled
> to put his own work in the public domain.

My tongue-in-cheek response was a bit too cryptic. I meant to stress
the "standard text" part which is non-existent. I know that we cannot
and will not include a "license" for something like this, because
public domain is not a license at all. Thus I figured my suggestion
for the 'none' license was acceptable, but that got shot down
quickly...

-Dan

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 08:13 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default license for sqlite3

On Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

My tongue-in-cheek response was a bit too cryptic. I meant to stress
the "standard text" part which is non-existent. I know that we cannot
and will not include a "license" for something like this, because

public domain is not a license at all. Thus I figured my suggestion
for the 'none' license was acceptable, but that got shot down
quickly...

It wasn't shot down - I said that it's "assuming sqlite is released with no license whatsoever".* I don't understand this public domain stuff, so when I looked on their website, I saw something that seemed to be license-ish in nature, and so I also added "I don't think this is the case"


If public-domain == no license whatsoever, then license=('none') is probably the way to go, and the "none" license should be recognized as syntactically correct.

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org