publishing code

[thor-2]

Hi 

I stumbled upon the file "publishing code" which is linked to from the 

main help file.

It contains this sentence:

<quote>

You may think of an artistic licencing scheme, such as creative commons or gpl:

http://www.opensource.org

http://creativecommons.org

</quote>

We should probably remove this sentence as all code has to be GPL (which is non-compatible

with Creative Commons) and also because GPL is not really an "artistic licencing scheme".

Do people agree?

thor

[Julian Rohrhuber]

yes, please go ahead.

>Hi
>
>I stumbled upon the file "publishing code" which is linked to from the
>main help file.
>
>It contains this sentence:
>
><quote>
>You may think of an artistic licencing scheme, such as creative
>commons or gpl:
>
> <http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org
> <http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org
></quote>
>
>
>We should probably remove this sentence as all code has to be GPL
>(which is non-compatible
>with Creative Commons) and also because GPL is not really an
>"artistic licencing scheme".
>
>Do people agree?
>
>thor

--





.

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list


info (subscribe and unsubscribe): http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/

[thor-2]

hi again

I was going to change the file and then I read this:

Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or software that includes changes to scserver

requires the sourcecode to be published together with it.

but this is probably more correct:

Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or software that includes changes to scserver

requires the sourcecode to be publicly available. 

(i.e. the source code doesn't have to be distributed _together_ with it, but

merely has to be accessible by some means).

ok as well?

 

On 5 Jul 2008, at 21:48, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:

yes, please go ahead.

Hi

I stumbled upon the file "publishing code" which is linked to from the

main help file.

It contains this sentence:

<quote>

You may think of an artistic licencing scheme, such as creative commons or gpl:

<http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org

<http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org

</quote>

We should probably remove this sentence as all code has to be GPL (which is non-compatible

with Creative Commons) and also because GPL is not really an "artistic licencing scheme".

Do people agree?

thor

-- 

.

_______________________________________________

sc-dev mailing list

info (subscribe and unsubscribe): http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880

archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/

search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/

[Julian Rohrhuber]

>hi again
>
>I was going to change the file and then I read this:
>
>Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or
>software that includes changes to scserver
>requires the sourcecode to be published together with it.
>
>but this is probably more correct:
>
>Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or
>software that includes changes to scserver
>requires the sourcecode to be publicly available.
>
>(i.e. the source code doesn't have to be distributed _together_ with it, but
>merely has to be accessible by some means).
>
>
>ok as well?

I think so.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 Jul 2008, at 21:48, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>
>>yes, please go ahead.
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>I stumbled upon the file "publishing code" which is linked to from the
>>>main help file.
>>>
>>>It contains this sentence:
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>You may think of an artistic licencing scheme, such as creative
>>>commons or gpl:
>>>
>>>
>>> <<http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org><http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org
>>>
>>> <<http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org><http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org
>>></quote>
>>>
>>>
>>>We should probably remove this sentence as all code has to be GPL
>>>(which is non-compatible
>>>with Creative Commons) and also because GPL is not really an
>>>"artistic licencing scheme".
>>>
>>>Do people agree?
>>>
>>>thor
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sc-dev mailing list
>>
>>
>>info (subscribe and unsubscribe):
>><http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880>http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
>>archive:
>><http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/>http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
>>search:
>><http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/>http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/

--





.

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list


info (subscribe and unsubscribe): http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/

[Dan Stowell]

yep, I agree too, thanks for the eagle eyes thor

2008/7/5, Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber@...>:

> > hi again
> >
> > I was going to change the file and then I read this:
> >
> > Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or software
> that includes changes to scserver
> > requires the sourcecode to be published together with it.
> >
> > but this is probably more correct:
> >
> > Generally, making software public that is written in sclang or software
> that includes changes to scserver
> > requires the sourcecode to be publicly available.
> >
> > (i.e. the source code doesn't have to be distributed _together_ with it,
> but
> > merely has to be accessible by some means).
> >
> >
> > ok as well?
> >
>
>
>  I think so.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Jul 2008, at 21:48, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
> >
> >
> > > yes, please go ahead.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I stumbled upon the file "publishing code" which is linked to from the
> > > > main help file.
> > > >
> > > > It contains this sentence:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > You may think of an artistic licencing scheme, such as creative
> commons or gpl:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> <<http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org><http://www.opensource.org>http://www.opensource.org
> > > >
> > > >
> <<http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org><http://creativecommons.org>http://creativecommons.org
> > > > </quote>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We should probably remove this sentence as all code has to be GPL
> (which is non-compatible
> > > > with Creative Commons) and also because GPL is not really an "artistic
> licencing scheme".
> > > >
> > > > Do people agree?
> > > >
> > > > thor
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > sc-dev mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > > info (subscribe and unsubscribe):
> <http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880>http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
> > > archive:
> <http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/>http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
> > > search:
> <http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/>http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/
> > >
> >
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
>
>
>  .
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  sc-dev mailing list
>
>
>  info (subscribe and unsubscribe):
> http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
>  archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
>  search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/
>

--
http://www.mcld.co.uk

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list


info (subscribe and unsubscribe): http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/MusicTechnology/880
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/