Re: Question about wondershaper
Would this also mean, that I am wrong? Legal notices are - I do agree - ridiculous, but necessary. They are required by most governments, and if we take this to the furthest consequence - which many corporations are known to do, for whatever cause - this very important piece of text would make the difference. Am I wrong?
I am not a government and I am not a corporation... I'm some bloke on a
remote island who's trying to come up with a way to do VoIP traffic
shaping...
I simply don't think it's a big deal - I'd rather you look at the hacked
script I posted and see if it makes any sense to you :-)
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:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/disclaimer
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.
It's not a question of reaching for rebellion, but merely to strive to make the opensource/Free Software-community remember such necessecities.
Well, let's make a use policy for the list and forget about it then -
because I certainly can't be bothered. Where are the list admins when
you need them? :-)
Reply to: