Le mar 02/12/2003 à 00:18, Franck a écrit : > The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd and > BSDs) binary distribution would be okay without restriction. > > >From the GNU/Linux point of view, the licence is like GPL. Only windows > and other non free operating system would be restricted. For them, the > licence is like QMail's licence.
> We would like to write the most open-source friendly licence based on > the above terms, and we are open to any suggestion. Dual licencsing is > an option if we find a way to make evrything working. It is quite difficult to make a software free, but only for some use. Well, this is often non-free. If there are enough Windows-specific bits, you might want to license the *nix version under the GPL, and the windows version under a qmail-like license. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
