Re: Question about wondershaper
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 10:08, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> >I think we should, too. Why not have a "GPL-licensed mailing list", when
the software we're trying to support and maintain is GPL-licensed?
> >However, as stated here:
> >You still own the copyright (and restrict it to the furthest possible by
default of many governments). This means that we have to keep noting that
scripts meant for distribution are licensed under our favorite license,
otherwise they aren't.
> To be honest I think this is still too restrictive. I think code that is
> posted on a technical list should be either:
> a) under the same license as the original works if it's a derivative
> b) be automatically public domain when the license has not been specified
> So for example, if I posted on the list my magic command to add 3 and 5
> without specifying a license:
> perl -e 'print 3+5'
> It would become automatically public domain.
I agree. However, the world does not consider this so lightly as you seem to
do (and I would like to be able to). Perhaps I could convince you and others
reading this, to consider making a licensing-note in any script, of the
But yes. No more discussion of this is needed.
Regards, Anders Breindahl.