Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:38:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1223 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting. I would rather see it under something like Perl's
> Artistic License than GPL, though. How do you define "programs"? And
> the license should be careful not to preclude the possibility of LEGO using
> or interfacing with the parts somehow someday.
TLC won't use our parts directly (interfacing maybe) but even if they
want to, they can use the parts as long as they use the unmodified
version or publish their changes under our license.
Here's a link with several software licenses:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Leonardo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) What Todd (and I) were commenting on was this (optional) provision: (...) Which is different from your statement above, and would block TLC from using the parts unless their program was free. Before finalizing the licenses, it would be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) Sounds interesting. I would rather see it under something like Perl's Artistic License than GPL, though. How do you define "programs"? And the license should be careful not to preclude the possibility of LEGO using or interfacing with the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
