Sean Luke wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable, spirit-of-the-law interpretation of the
> license. As such, I think there are two ways one can go. If you're
> worried that someone is going to nail you to the wall, and you've got a
> lot of money riding on the development you're doing, etc., then sure,
> you want to make sure that all possible interpretations of a license
> favor you (or get a preemptive judgement by a court). If it's not a
> serious worry to you, then use your own more reasonable interpretation,
> and assume that forgiveness is easier to obtain that permission.
That sounds fair enough. To add perhaps one thing: If someone developing
original software for the Newton (e.g. not porting something else) and
is considering the GPL as a license, the current situation with the NTK
and NCT is something to be aware of. I still would think that the GPL
can be applied though, and I certainly would not want to limit someone's
choices of a license.
> I say: port the dang thing, and if the MAD guys get mad, and ask that it
> not be used, then agree and don't use it. But the probability of that
> is so infinitesimally small that the utility of even discussing the
> problem isn't worth it.
Robert Leslie seems to be a really nice guy and I cannot imagine that he
would object. Actually, he is now considering buying a Newton :)
MAD Newton is coming along quite well and I hope to release a version
that is able to play streams (56kbit/sec) pretty soon. "Stay tuned..."
Eckhart
PS: Thank god this discussion did not evolve into a major flamefest ;)
--
-- eck_at_40hz.org -- www.40hz.org --
--
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 20:02:39 EST