On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:03:11 +0000
mpu <quentin_AT_c9x.me> wrote:
> quentin_AT_c9x.me (mpu) wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I wrote some tools to design bitmap fonts. Maybe you'll
> > be interested.
> >
> > http://github.com/mpu/fnt/
>
> I feel bad that this whole discussion ended up being about
> legal matters. Because some people seem unable to simply
> copy-paste 200 lines of code when it does not have a
> license, I put one in the Github repo.
You should not feel bad about that. The silence otherwise
and combined with this discussion probably indicates that
we are interested, at least I am, and have not technical
complaints.
>
> I think I'm starting to understand __20h__'s "copy me if
> you can", maybe it should be "copy me if you dare".
"copy me if you can" is an informal license, which is
actually worse then public domain. Best just the have a
script that creates a new project and automatically
puts the MIT license on it. Perhaps call it gitinit.
>
> To be honest I feel a bit stupid putting a license on four
> glorified while loops. I'm not sure what is the limit for
> requiring a license, do we need to license awk one-liners
> when we paste them on IRC? If not, what was the problem
> with my repository. The four files provided as source are
> really almost one-liners.
A safe but is that anything more than hello world (GNU's
implementation should be considered much more) is probably
enough for a license. It is not only the triviality that
acyually needs to be considered, it is the originality too.
>
> I wonder if the people who just complained about (lack of)
> licensing are really concerned about it or are just of the
> same kind of people that find it unacceptable to write
> (x - 'a') in C.
What is wrong with (x - 'a')? In what context. But I think
people care about the licensing because it would really
suck to have to detail with copyright infringement issues
>
> Hopefully we can now talk about what I submitted.
It looks great!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- mpu
>
Received on Wed Dec 23 2015 - 22:13:53 CET