No. All past notmm licenses were and still ARE ISC licensed. The license fee is simply because I'm shifting into commercial license for new releases, including the newer 0.4.5 version... Pypi was not the authority source for notmm and neither anyone can claim the license was left blank, thats once again a form of plagiarism.
Shall anyone is really serious about supporting the work i did then he'll want to pay a minimal fee to get the proper license rights and can contact me off-list if he want to fork a branch to github of google code. Thanks, Etienne On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:39:55 -0600 Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/04/2012 05:13 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: > > Thanks, but I tried all that and don't have much energy for continuing. If > > you're > > serious about open source then maybe you can forward the thread to > > django-developers > > and get some fundings to pay for a minimalistic fee to get the project > > maintained > > by someone else, otherwise I'd prefer sticking with more profitable > > activities. > > Nothing in the existing license prevents someone from taking the latest > source and posting it back on Pypi as an unmaintained package. Isn't > that correct? > > What are you referring to when you say "minimalistic fee." Would this > be a fee you require for transferring copyright assignment? I know of > no fee necessary for a new maintainer to take over should one wish to. > Copyright assignment is not strictly necessary. > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- Etienne Robillard Green Tea Hackers Club Fine Software Carpentry For The Rest Of Us! http://gthc.org/ e...@gthcfoundation.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
