headers
John Waugh | 18 May 2011 19:26
Picon

Jam license

I'm (slowly) working on a project to collect various
patches/improvements to Jam from this list and other fork projects
into one place.
If my memory serves, there was at some point an effort to get classic
Jam's source released under a more permissive license.

Does anyone remember if that happened?
I thought it might have been public domain-ed, but can't find
reference to that now that I look for it.

-John
_______________________________________________
jamming mailing list  -  jamming <at> maillist.perforce.com
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Graeme Gill | 19 May 2011 00:36

Re: Jam license

John Waugh wrote:
> If my memory serves, there was at some point an effort to get classic
> Jam's source released under a more permissive license.

It's equivalent to a BSD license. How much more permissive
could it be ?

>
>     /+\
>     +\  Copyright 1993-2002 Christopher Seiwald and Perforce Software, Inc.
>     \+/
>
>     This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>
>     License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
>     freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
>     are clearly marked.
>
>     ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.

Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
jamming mailing list  -  jamming <at> maillist.perforce.com
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
Permalink | Reply |
headers
G. Matthew Rice | 19 May 2011 00:44

Re: Jam license

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2 <at> argyllcms.com> wrote:
>> If my memory serves, there was at some point an effort to get classic
>> Jam's source released under a more permissive license.
>
> It's equivalent to a BSD license. How much more permissive
> could it be ?

no copyright attribution or change reporting?

(yeah, I'm an ass) :)
--matt
>
>>
>>    /+\
>>    +\  Copyright 1993-2002 Christopher Seiwald and Perforce Software, Inc.
>>    \+/
>>
>>    This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
>>
>>    License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
>>    freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
>>    are clearly marked.
>>
>>    ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
>
> Graeme Gill.
> _______________________________________________
> jamming mailing list  -  jamming <at> maillist.perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Waugh | 19 May 2011 01:06
Picon

Re: Jam license

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme2 <at> argyllcms.com> wrote:
> It's equivalent to a BSD license. How much more permissive
> could it be ?
>

See Matthew's response (:

I didn't mean to imply it was very restrictive, and yes I have read it.
It's just that I'm no lawyer, want to comply with the license, and I'm
not fully sure what that entails.

My project is essentially a set of patches, so maybe that satisfies
the license by itself. It's just that if a patch is applied to a file
and that file says "copyright XXX" (as required by the Jam license),
and the *patch* is actually copyright YYY, it is hard to know which
part is whose from looking at the patched file.

Currently I put a line like: "see patch Foo for changes made to this
file" in each affected file, but I don't know if that's legally
sufficient, or if I'm supposed to put comments around every change
(which would be onerous).

It would just be one less thing to worry about if it had been
public-domained, is all.

-John
_______________________________________________
jamming mailing list  -  jamming <at> maillist.perforce.com
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane