Based on the terms of the GPL, I think the package info file should say
GPL since the package must still be distributed under the terms of the
GPL (that's how copyleft works).
Happy Hacking,
David E. McMackins II
Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972)
Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889)
www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com
www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org
On 2018-08-07 07:05, Mateusz Viste wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 06:45:33 -0500, David McMackins wrote:
Why does your "copying policy" say MIT but the license in RCAL.TXT is
GPL? Confusing.
No it's not, if you can read. Here's an excerpt of RCAL.TXT just for
you:
rcal is published under the MIT license, as printed below.
(...)
rcal relies on the APM (Arbitrary Precision Math) library v1.0,
published by Lloyd Zusman in 1988. The APM library falls under
different licensing terms than rcal, (...) the APM GPL.
I hope this helps.
Mateusz
--
FreeDOS is present on the USENET, too! alt.os.free-dos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
