Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

University Challenge (Announce)

posted by glennmcc Homepage E-mail, North Jackson, Ohio (USA), 26.03.2022, 21:02
(edited by glennmcc on 26.03.2022, 21:13)

> > I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
> > and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> > (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> > along with the resulting program)
> >
> > That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> > modified code the be released along with its resulting program.
>
> This is wrong. One of the few effective differences between public domain
> dedications and permissive choices such as MIT style or 3-/2-/0-clause BSD
> licenses is that of attribution. It is valid to tuck away that attribution
> somewhere in the documentation. Only copyleft licenses require that
> "modified code be released along with its resulting program".
>
> (The other difference is that public domain may not be recognised in some
> places. This is the reason for CC-Zero.)
Clipped from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
(same is in gpl v3)

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

___________

Included in my distribution of DOS Arachne is LICENSE.TXT
which is the full text of the GPL v2 license.\

And of-course directly under the link to download the DOS Arachne package
is located the link to download the full source code.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 442 users online (0 registered, 442 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum