Of course I will attribute my works, probably by copying Bill's attribution
into my license.txt.  And yes, I will be maintaining the anti-viral
restriction.  If there are other attributions of note which actually make it
over to my code in some fashion, they too will be noted - and if someone
else thinks they see an unattributed block they can notify me and it will be

I wave my hands because it was clear to me from the first mail that a
mountain was being constructed from the lair of a small burrowing creature,
and that lengthy emails would ensue which, in the end, would result in no
change.  Such a result has come about, though perhaps you and Trent (and
miscellaneous lurkers) will feel better knowing my aims are not nefarious :)

-----Original Message-----
From: netrek-dev-bounces at us.netrek.org
[mailto:netrek-dev-bounces at us.netrek.org] On Behalf Of mark at mark.mielke.cc
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:10 PM
To: Netrek Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [netrek-dev] Code modification and licenses

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:04:12PM -0700, ChronosWS wrote:
> License follows:
> It's really simple.  Permission is granted similar to the copyright
> from Chris Guthrie, Kevin Smith and Scott Silvey.
>  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>  * documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>  * that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
>  * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
>  * documentation.

Will you be complying to the requirement that "the above copyright notice
appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission
notice appear in supporting documentation"?

>  * No representations are made about the suitability of this
>  * software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or
>  * implied warranty.
> With one restriction.
> You may not re-license this code under the GNU General Public License or
> even the Lesser GPL(LGPL) licenses, or any other viral license which
> requires the forced release of source code as a condition for binary

Will you be retaining this restriction?

The original complaint was that you might not be attributing your derived
works appropriately. You agreed that you did not intend to. You claim that
you can do this because you are "re-writing" the code. However, you have
not provided any examples of arm's-length strategies that you will employ
to guarantee that your software will be a re-write. You wave your hands
over the significance of the license, claiming that the product has no
monetary value, therefore the license need not be respected.

You don't see why somebody else might be concerned? :-)


mark at mielke.cc / markm at ncf.ca / markm at nortel.com
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario,

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them
                       and in the darkness bind them...


netrek-dev mailing list
netrek-dev at us.netrek.org