[Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses?
I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing for pedagogical purposes. So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src? Thanks, R
Robert P. Goldman writes:
I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing for pedagogical purposes.
I'd be inclined to say "when in doubt, ask". Either us collectively or the author of any specific code snippet you're interested in using.
So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src?
There were some thoughts, but assorted web-fu problems, combined with a lack of time and mailman being a right bastard at the time meant I didn't get around to slap a general "Unless this, that or these terms-of-use please explicitly mention the terms" and I can't really do that retroactively. I could, of course, solicit opinions on what you, the users of small-cl-src, think and set a suitable cut-off date. I'd humbly suggest either "BSD with or without credit required" or "Public Domain" as the two least undesirable options, but as long as it's OK to (a) keep in the archives and (b) to redistribute, I'm fine with whatever people are fine with. //Ingvar
I propose that the list policy is that postings are in the public domain unless otherwise specified in the body of the message, to keep this list maximally friendly and useful. Policy can be implemented with a note added to the mailing list description and automatic reminders and with a note automatically added to each message, to that effect. My two cents. -Alan On May 25, 2004, at 10:18 AM, Ingvar wrote:
Robert P. Goldman writes:
I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing for pedagogical purposes.
I'd be inclined to say "when in doubt, ask". Either us collectively or the author of any specific code snippet you're interested in using.
So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src?
There were some thoughts, but assorted web-fu problems, combined with a lack of time and mailman being a right bastard at the time meant I didn't get around to slap a general "Unless this, that or these terms-of-use please explicitly mention the terms" and I can't really do that retroactively.
I could, of course, solicit opinions on what you, the users of small-cl-src, think and set a suitable cut-off date. I'd humbly suggest either "BSD with or without credit required" or "Public Domain" as the two least undesirable options, but as long as it's OK to (a) keep in the archives and (b) to redistribute, I'm fine with whatever people are fine with.
//Ingvar
_______________________________________________ Small-cl-src-discuss mailing list Small-cl-src-discuss@hexapodia.net http://head.cathouse.bofh.se:8080/mailman/listinfo/small-cl-src-discuss
"Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanr-l@mumble.net> writes:
Alan> I propose that the list policy is that postings are in the Alan> public domain unless otherwise specified in the body of the Alan> message, to keep this list maximally friendly and Alan> useful. Policy can be implemented with a note added to the Alan> mailing list description and automatic reminders and with a Alan> note automatically added to each message, to that effect. Personally, I prefer assuming something like a BSD license. Why? I've been an academic and so I believe that it's important to be able to use the products of someone else's work, but I also believe that it's a real sin not to give credit for that work. Public domain means you don't have to give credit.... Cheers, R
Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman <at> sift.info> writes:
So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src?
My previous posting ("Transforming recursion to dynamic programming") is in the public domain. If I post again, I'll add a notice. Darius
participants (5)
-
Alan Ruttenberg -
Darius Bacon -
Ingvar -
Robert P. Goldman -
Zach Beane