Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later >>>time to the change to another licence altogether, maybe one of the >>>upcoming CECILL family. >> >>If you could get it changed to the version with the explicit GPL >>conversion clause, then we would have no issues. > > Well, it will most assuredly not be the GPL-like licence anyway, so ...
The license itself is not GPL-like. It just contains a clause partway through the license saying that you may alternatively use/copy/modify/distribute under the GPL. I believe it was included to ensure that the license was explicitly GPL-compatible. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
