Do we use the vanilla file header from opensource, or is there a Hermes
version, with some extra philosophical views on top of the opensource?
If we demand ownership of our code, we've kinda left the open source
philosophy. But OK. Then we move to another server and we can do what we
want.
But what's the official course here? And being Gentlemen, as I assume you
all are, you know that we can't use an open source library and claim the
result as our own.
Either we're opensource, or we're not. In the last case, we can't build on
the shoulders of incredibly gifted individuals and groups, but has to
invent everything from the deep plate and onward. Not very likely.
Let's use an Open Source header. Our modifications will be licenced under the BSD for now. I don't like the GPL, but the BSD licence is just fine. Three-clause, please.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Let's use an Open Source header. Our modifications will be licenced under the BSD for now. I don't like the GPL, but the BSD licence is just fine. Three-clause, please.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
OK, but you agree that all files having a QuallComm header is worth
replacing with an open source header. Don't take me wrong. All of the
QaulComm licensed files are worth replacing?
Let's use an Open Source header. Our modifications will be licenced under
the BSD for now. I don't like the GPL, but the BSD licence is just fine.
Three-clause, please.
The files should already contain a copy of the BSD licence. If not, feel free to replace the headers with something like Cop't 1991-2005 Qualcomm, 2018 HERMES, use of this software is governed by these terms: [text of three-clause BSD licence here]
We should leave in credit for Qualcomm---that should keep their lawyers off our toes---just make clear that the software has been worked on since then and that our modifications are OURS.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Do we use the vanilla file header from opensource, or is there a Hermes
version, with some extra philosophical views on top of the opensource?
If we demand ownership of our code, we've kinda left the open source
philosophy. But OK. Then we move to another server and we can do what we
want.
But what's the official course here? And being Gentlemen, as I assume you
all are, you know that we can't use an open source library and claim the
result as our own.
Either we're opensource, or we're not. In the last case, we can't build on
the shoulders of incredibly gifted individuals and groups, but has to
invent everything from the deep plate and onward. Not very likely.
Regards.
Let's use an Open Source header. Our modifications will be licenced under the BSD for now. I don't like the GPL, but the BSD licence is just fine. Three-clause, please.
Let's use an Open Source header. Our modifications will be licenced under the BSD for now. I don't like the GPL, but the BSD licence is just fine. Three-clause, please.
OK, but you agree that all files having a QuallComm header is worth
replacing with an open source header. Don't take me wrong. All of the
QaulComm licensed files are worth replacing?
Regards.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:14 PM Ted Matavka nmatavka@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
The files should already contain a copy of the BSD licence. If not, feel free to replace the headers with something like Cop't 1991-2005 Qualcomm, 2018 HERMES, use of this software is governed by these terms: [text of three-clause BSD licence here]
We should leave in credit for Qualcomm---that should keep their lawyers off our toes---just make clear that the software has been worked on since then and that our modifications are OURS.
Excellent idea, Ted. :-)