New look for haskell.org: MediaWiki

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 23:28 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:

> I'm sorry this is dragging on so long. It seems public domain is hard,
> both in the U.S. and in certain European jurisdictions. And people want
> a disclaimer.
>
> I did come across the MIT license, which may be close.
> <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>
> Here is my non-expert attempt to adapt it, removing the condition, and
> changing "Software" to "Work":
>
> "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> this work (the "Work"),

According to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php it should
read:

        [...] to any person obtaining *a copy of* this work,

Or is leaving out of "a copy of" intended?

Anyway, I'm happy that we have a satisfying license now and can contribute to
the wiki (again).

> [...]

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Ashley Yakeley
In article <[hidden email]>,
 Wolfgang Jeltsch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> According to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php it should
> read:
>
> [...] to any person obtaining *a copy of* this work,
>
> Or is leaving out of "a copy of" intended?

Whoops, no. I think it's safe to leave, though?

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2006 06:36 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:

> In article <[hidden email]>,
>
>  Wolfgang Jeltsch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > According to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php it should
> > read:
> >
> > [...] to any person obtaining *a copy of* this work,
> >
> > Or is leaving out of "a copy of" intended?
>
> Whoops, no. I think it's safe to leave, though?

I don't know the judical terminology.  Maybe, the makers of the so-called MIT
license inserted "a copy of" because what you receive on your computer is
strictly speaking always just a copy of the work since the actual work lies
on the server, the computer of the creator or whatever.  Maybe, it's safer to
include "a copy of".  I think this shouldn't be much of a problem since the
current license and the corrected license would roughly be the same so that I
cannot imagine some author complaining about a license change in the form of
addition of "a copy of".

What do others think?

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
12345