http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/69 <pre>Hi, I've posted a new Project on my page under unlicense, please add to your list. thanks Definition: Codechu Macroscope, keyboard &amp; mouse macro recorder for Windows, features repositioning &amp; scaling of mouse movement and altering playback speed, developed by Onur Barlık, is in the public domain. Site: www.codechu.com Project Page Link: http://www.codechu.com/index.php/138/macroscope/ </pre> Onur BARLIK 2013-04-25T22:33:49 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/68 <pre>Fpgatools fpgatools is a toolchain to program field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). The only supported chip at this time is the xc6slx9, a 7 USD 45nm-generation fpga with 5720 6-input LUTs, block ram and multiply-accumulate devices. More info: https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools BTW: Anyone want help me on upload fpgatools to Debian: https://mentors.debian.net/package/fpgatools </pre> xiangfu< at >openmobilefree.net 2012-12-17T12:21:51 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/67 <pre>Just a quick message to announce pd_readline - a public-domain readline and command-history implementation (using the Unlicense). It can be obtained from here - https://github.com/mooseman It is still a bit alpha-ish (I've had the occasional problem with a stack-smash) but it "generally behaves as expected" (for most values of "generally"...... ;) ) Give it a go. Compile it, put the "test.txt" file in the same directory (that's just a dummy "command-history" file for now), and play around with it. "Share and enjoy......" ;) </pre> Andy Elvey 2012-09-05T09:18:59 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/66 <pre>Sounds good! Ok - I'll check those out too... :) You're welcome! Bye for now - - Andy </pre> Andy Elvey 2012-08-08T07:01:20 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/65 <pre> Yes I already seen this great project. I've just started to port it to Windows. I hope that I will be able to send a patch to the author in the next few weeks. (on the tx3.org web site there a BASIC interpreter and a Scheme interpreter too. They both are public domain. ) Thanks, Jean-Marc </pre> Jean-Marc Lienher 2012-08-07T19:18:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/64 <pre>Hi! Ok - I'll send this on to them and let them know. Thanks for that! Oh, btw - just thought I'd mention an interesting project that I came across recently - this one - http://www.t3x.org/subc/index.html It's for the public-domain "SubC" compiler, for a subset of C. Just thought I'd mention it in case the code may be of use to you.... :) Bye for now - - Andy On 07/08/12 07:51, Jean-Marc Lienher wrote: </pre> Andy Elvey 2012-08-07T06:26:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/63 <pre>Hi, I moved my list and archive of public domain software to http://www.cod5.org/archive . I added some new entries, but it's always mainly C source code. I'm not anymore the owner of whoow.org, so could you update the unlicense.org page ? Thanks in advance. Jean-Marc </pre> Jean-Marc Lienher 2012-08-06T19:51:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/62 <pre> I mentioned it, but following up to a very old thread https://groups.google.com/d/msg/unlicense/an9PHJ0NGxA/5xNx1k09_WUJ It can be reviewed if someone submits it. If someone does, I'd expect criticism of it to be harsh. A bit sad, but having the backing of a large organization is not strictly necessary; obviously a number of projects are using Unlicense, Ampify Unlicense, CC0, various ad hoc public domain dedications, without OSI approval. I think it is a good thing in the longer term, if it spurs development of more aggressive public domain dedications ... I'lll mention again the blog post where I expanded on this http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/02/25/permissions/ Mike </pre> Mike Linksvayer 2012-03-06T21:33:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/61 <pre>It looks like the thread from the license-review&lt; at &gt;opensource.org ml somehow did not get to this mailing list. Unlicense will not be reviewed by the OSI because it is a "crayon" licence (i.e. drafted by non legal professionals). Such licences have been problematic in the past. http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000047.html Although Unlicense will not be reviewed, some (supposed) flaws have been highlighted. http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html To summarise: Unlicense has little chance of being reviewed by the OSI, let alone approved. In the same news, CC0 has been withdrawn from the OSI process. http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000233.html All this is sad, it is 2012 and yet there are no easy ways (backed by major organisations) to dedicate software to the public domain . -- Gioele Barabucci &lt;gioele&lt; at &gt;svario.it&gt; </pre> Gioele Barabucci 2012-03-06T20:53:48 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/60 <pre>The Unlicense was mentioned a few times (once in vain) in recent license-review and license-discuss threads about CC0, archives at http://opensource.org/lists My overwrought post on the threads at http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/02/25/permissions/ mentions Tav's variation. My point is that we should be more demanding and aggressive about abandoning all possible restrictions. Speaking of Tav's http://ampify.it/unlicense.html I wonder about patent termination for aggressors in a public domain dedication. I understand why such provisions exist in licenses, and I see the language is copied from that used at http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ and other Google projects. Creative Commons is working on version 4.0 of its licenses now. I expect any future version of CC0 to be pretty far in the future, but I think people interested in public domain dedications or unlicenses if one wishes to say that generally ought be thinking about these issues... Mike </pre> Mike Linksvayer 2012-02-28T18:07:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/59 <pre>OK, well that pretty much answers my question. I can setup a mailing list very easily. I was just trying to make contributing as painless for the contributor as possible, and I thought an implied waiver would do that, but it does seem better to have a mailing list where major contributors can post their individual waivers for archival. From your project, it looks like the implied waiver should be fine for small patches, so I'll likely document that in my policies for contributing code. Looks like I should be safe saying something like: "By contributing code to this project, you agree to waive your copyrights and to place your contribution into the public domain. For patches consisting of 5 lines of code or more, please post an official waiver of copyright to the mailing list at ..." I would link to something similar to the SQLite waiver that can be copied and pasted into the email that the individual major contributor would send to the list along with his/her name. Does this cover all my bases</pre> Kyle 2011-09-09T22:32:50 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/58 <pre>For rdf.rb, we did a GNU-ish 'official agreements from big contributors, don't worry about it for a few lines of fixes'. We made them post the agreements to a mailing list. We got some companies to vaguely sponsor their employees' letters. Beyond that, nobody ever sued anyone so I doubt anyone can give useful legal advice here. Ben On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Kyle &lt;kyle&lt; at &gt;gmx.ca&gt; wrote: </pre> Ben Lavender 2011-09-09T19:15:58 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/57 <pre>Is it safe to state clearly, either by modifying the text of the Unlicense to include contributors, or by making a note in a separate location, that anyone who contributes code or documentation to my project understands that they have agreed to waive their copyrights when they agree to submit their contribution, or is it still better to collect a waiver of copyright from each individual contributor? I suppose the waivers could be collected along with individual names in a CONTRIBUTORS file, but is it really necessary in the days of implied agreement, e.g. "by using this, you agree to the terms and conditions..." this may seem like a rather silly question, but I really don't have the ability to pay lawyers in case something goes wrong, so I guess I just need to be sure all my bases are covered in the simplest way possible. Thanks for any advice. ~Kyle Sent from my Wishdroid! :) </pre> Kyle 2011-09-04T18:48:04 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/56 <pre>I am proud to announce the availability of PicoSpeaker http://picospeaker.tk as unlicensed code. Furthermore, the website itself has been dedicated to the public domain and includes a link in the footer to download the complete website source code. PicoSpeaker is a control interface to the SVox Pico speech synthesis engine written in Python. SVox Pico is the voice of Android phones, but the code has been ported to Linux and Windows. PicoSpeaker is designed to run on Linux or any other Unix-like OS that has access to Sox and the pico2wave utility available with the SVox Pico distribution. It provides volume, rate and pitch controls that are not available in the sample command-line pico2wave utility and can speak directly through the computer's sound device or save to a file. I currently use this along with a Speech-dispatcher configuration file to allow my computer to speak to me using this very nice voice and the Orca screen reader. As I am a firm believer in freedom of expression, and as I feel that the b</pre> Kyle 2011-09-03T20:00:10 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/55 <pre>(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like From http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/82.php </pre> Jeff 2011-07-03T09:22:32 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/54 <pre>Just dropping a note that the "miniz" project uses the Unlicense: http://code.google.com/p/miniz/ miniz is a lossless (standard Deflate/Inflate), high performance compression library with a zlib-compatible API in a single C source file. It also contains a set of optional functions for .ZIP archive reading and writing, and .PNG image writing. Thanks, Rich Geldreich </pre> richgel99 2011-05-28T22:29:20 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/53 <pre>Want to say I am interested in helping this discussion get to where its destination. On that note, a "unified" PD license should include something like "how to Obtaining An Explicit License To Use this work" as in sqlite which is public domain software, but also sells licenses for those who want them &lt;http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html&gt; I'm new around here, and if you're interested some relevant work of mine on this subject from my lab &lt;http://mr.danoff.org&gt; is a report "Exploring how to release something into the public domain" &lt;http:// www.danoff.org/leftinfront/?p=1639&gt; and a short video "The Public Domain Paradox" &lt;http://www.archive.org/details/ ThePublicDomainParadox&gt;. - Charles -- Charles Jeffrey Danoff Lab: http://mr.danoff.org Home: http://danoff.org On Apr 15, 9:46 am, Peter Saint-Andre &lt;stpe...&lt; at &gt;stpeter.im&gt; wrote: </pre> Charles 2011-04-29T14:11:47 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/52 <pre> Mike, thanks for sharing the good news and for all the work you folks did to make this possible. For further discussion, I notice that the FSF's free license list &lt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html&gt; also says: ### The Unlicense The Unlicense is a public domain dedication. A work released under the Unlicense is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law, and also comes with an additional simple license that helps cover any cases where the dedication is inadequate. Both public domain works and the simple license provided by the Unlicense are compatible with the GNU GPL. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. CC0 also provides a public domain dedication with a fallback license, and is more thorough and mature than the Unlicense. ### Because I'm not a fan of license proliferation (I worked to deprecate the old Jabber Open Source License or JOSL in the XMPP community), I look forward to further discussion about workin</pre> Peter Saint-Andre 2011-04-15T14:46:09 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/51 <pre> Hi Tav and all, Extremely cool to run into you again, here. I will attempt to add to this thread at length soon. I like the ideas Tav brought up. Will take a really long time to make happen as a CC tool (CC0 2.0 or whatever), simply because CC moves very slowly and carefully on new instruments, which is mostly a good thing. I'm prompted to respond at all now because there has been discussion of public domain software instruments with FSF and others, leading to them adding CC0 to their licenses list, and CC adding deployment instructions for CC0 and software (lack of which I think I mentioned previously as a barrier to use). See https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081 Mike </pre> Mike Linksvayer 2011-04-15T13:32:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/50 <pre>Hi, I love the Unlicense and have started using it for my small scientific projects. I noticed one piece of errata in 'Dissecting the Unlicense' (http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense) that I think is misleading and needs to be fixed: in section §2, 'The Freedoms', one reads: I don't think that you can, in general, legally relicense code, or any content, that has been put into the public domain, because this implies you are claiming copyright over it. This makes it copyfraud. As evidence I submit the Wikipedia entry on copyfraud - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/copyfraud - and this article by a legal scholar, pointing out how common copyfraud is today and arguing that it is a major problem: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244 So I would advocate changing this line ASAP. Best, Marius PS. I am not a lawyer. </pre> Marius Kempe 2011-02-23T15:03:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense/49 <pre>Tav, I'd like to take a quick stab at addressing some of your concerns as Arto and I saw them when we were working on it (and let me just say that while 'we' is appropriate for 'working on it', every word was written by Arto): On purpose. The various issues involved for non-code IP and code IP are separate. They warrant separate paperwork. CC has published statements amounting to the same. Correct. Specifically addressing moral rights incorrectly is a problem, and having recently tried to do this for a real-life thing, it's a huge, huge issue, different in many countries, and all but impossible to get right. It can take pages and pages in Germany. But one has to remember that contracts are not parsed by computers, but humans. If a particular contract is invalid in a jurisdiction, a *judge* will generally attempt to determine intent. The unlicense is designed to stand quite well as a statement of intent in jurisdictions that do not respect public domain assignments. Curiously, it can be better to be *le</pre> Ben Lavender 2011-01-26T08:51:17 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.law.unlicense