Hi Jim,
you probably remember my constant nagging abou the licensing of your
library code. Inside the bug report in Debian BTS[1] you mentioned MPL
yourself. Since I did not received any definitive answer stronger than
"looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, ... I can release it under
that as well."
I was searching the web for potential new releases of the code. I found
something at Github which has only four files left with a non-free
license and I mentioned this in the according bug report there[2]. From
what I can see when inspecting the whole directory it looks pretty much
like an unwanted leftover since all other files have later copyright and
a free license.
It would be really great if you could clarify this.
Thanks a lot for your cooperation
Andreas.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807580#112
[2] https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:56:16AM -0700, John St. John wrote:
> Hi Andreas, this issue should be taken up directly with Jim Kent. If he gives
> the OK I am more than happy to update those problematic headers. This is not
> my code, so I am not sure what was intended between the conflicting statement
> in the README that was part of the Kent source tree at the time, and header
> comments in the individual libraries you mentioned.
>
> ---
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2#issuecomment-217906316
--
http://fam-tille.de
