read the license -- something made up and probably not enforceable.? and how does sheepishly?following a license equate to being a good ham.....the spirit of amateur radio (at least what I learned?40 odd years ago) was figuring it out for yourself and doing the tech (math/science) to make something happen.? airwave are and always have been free -- can't control the ether --- we just prescribe to an attitude?of community/sharability?of that common resource....? go try a contest if you want to see how amicable folks are -- i tried busting in during ham weekend and was stepped over by a guy running >100W on UHF/VHF -- so talk about fairness and compliance..lol.
I agree.??
And for those condoning violation of the license, why are you even hams?
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:53 PM Keating Floyd <
kc4hsi@...> wrote:
Wow.? Y'all are a tough crowd!
I think Dave has done something pretty cool, and deserves some kudos.? How he chooses to package and present is up to him.
I, for one, thank you, Dave!
Keating
KC4HSI
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jim Erickson <
jim@...> wrote:
¡°I would grant that request¡±?
Holy!? I¡¯m out too.
------
73,
Jim
VA7SHG - Phone
VE7TGZ/VA7TGZ - Other
On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:13, Dave Slotter, W3DJS <
slotter@...> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 02:57 PM, thegadget techie wrote:
some implied remuneration?herein
I charge no money, nothing, nada, zilch.
I don't think asking for a postcard to remove a nag dialog is out of the question. What I wonder about is how petty a person can get that would complain about such a small thing? And if they choose not to send the postcard? Well, the nag dialog isn't going to prevent them from using the image.
If people have issues running BOINC, I'm not such an unreasonable person that if they approached me directly that i wouldn't force them to run it. Not everyone has a fan on their setup. I get it. So if they approached me with a good reason to disable it,
I would grant that request. But to take the choice away from me as the author of the creation is to strip away my rights that I worked hard for. It negates the six months of time I took to build the image and discourages me from sharing in the future.
And my source code is open for inspection. Just because I have a custom license and not a boilerplate GPL or MIT license keeps it from being open source. Nothing in my license takes away existing GPL licenses. People are free to modify their GPL software. I think there's a lot of headache due to "armchair lawyers" not understanding the nuances of the law or the LICENSE as it pertains to the software image and misapplying their incorrect assumptions.
?
--
- Dave
??
