On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 06:36:35PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:09:15 -0500
> Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 09:45:26PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:31:08 -0500, Steve wrote in message
> > > <20170225203108.2838a110@???>:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:34:50 -0500
> > > > Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And speaking of bookmarks, each browser seems to jealously hang
> > > > > on to its bookmarks, unless perhaps another browser manages to
> > > > > sneak in like a thief and import them. Is this the way
> > > > > browsers cement their grip on users? Isn't there any way of
> > > > > setting up bookmarks so that multiple browsers and other tools
> > > > > can use them?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Using a very simple tab-indented outline that I maintain with
> > > > VimOutliner adorned Vim, plus a conversion app, I have hundreds of
> > > > bookmarks, organized just the way I want them. If I want to
> > > > change the organization, I do some cutting and pasting on my
> > > > outline and recompile. Every browser I use has a link called
> > > > "littlinks", and clicking it brings up my link hierarchy. In the
> > > > past I've even tweaked my desktop's Apache so any computer within
> > > > the house could pull up my links page at
> > > > http://192.168.100.2/littlinks. On any browser, including elinks.
> > > >
> > > > I did this for the exact reason you state: To keep my bookmarks
> > > > from being held hostage by particular software.
> > > >
> > > > If a lot of you want this, I'll slap a free software license on
> > > > it and release it.
> > >
> > > ..make it GPLv2, v3 is too kind on violators. ;o)
> >
> > How is v3 kinder on violators? As far as I know, it has a lot of
> > restrictions to forbid various kinds of abuse.
> >
> > And to reach maximum availability for various forms of reuse, please
> > if you want to use GPL2 or 3, use GPL2+.
> >
> > I'd be happy with a freeer license, too. There. a word with three
> > consecutive e's!
>
> I use copyleft licenses when:
>
> 1) The work is a substantial coding effort
>
> And,
>

> 2) I see very little reason for someone to use parts of my code in
>    proprietary programs.

>
> In theory I'd use lgpl in cases of #2, but lgpl, if I remember
> correctly, forces the person incorporating the code into either
> revealing his source code or submitting very reverse-engineerable
> object code (I don't remember which).

The incorporator can do either of these things. He can also
distribute obfuscated object code. The only thing he has to permit is
linking with the independently written lgpl library.

>
> For little projects I just use the Expat license, which practically the
> same as one of the BSD licenses and one of the MIT licenses, except
> there's only one Expat license so there's no ambiguity.
>
> For copyleft stuff I usually use GPLv2 because I understand it, but for
> my recent UMENU2 I used GPLv3 because it addresses software patents.

and no one can distribute a program that contains both of these.

The problem here is that GPL2 and GPL3 are not compatible licences.
So there's a great divide between code that can be included in a
project licenced under GPL2 and code that can be incorporated in a
GPL3 project. Saying GLP2+ obviates some of this problem.

Of course, an MIT licence is compatible with all the GPL licences.

-- hendrik

> I
> *NEVER* include the words "or later", because I have no idea what kind
> of animals might take over the FSF in later times.

But peoplee will still be able to use your code under GLP2 no matter
wht the FSF specifies later.

>
> I never use licenses with mentions of indemnification. I'm not an
> insurace company.
>
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> February 2017 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng