Re: More problems with docs

David Welton writes: > From the RPM howto: > ... > Redistribution of this document is permitted as long as the content > remains completely intact and unchanged. We have a number of documents with this sort of license. The consensus seems to be that this is acceptable for documents. -- John Hasl

QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1

Here is my latest attempt at the QPL. This is based on QPL v.92 and I hope I can get a few suggestions about section 3(c). It just seems like it could and should be more clear to me. This proposal _IS_ GPL compatible. If you can read it and say it's not, I will say I want two cases of whatever

More problems with docs

>From the RPM howto: 8. Copyright Notice This document and its contents are copyright protected. Redistribution of this document is permitted as long as the content remains completely intact and unchanged. In other words, you may reformat and reprint or redistribute only. Have fun, a

Re: Include entire MPL in nqc package?

Ben Pfaff writes: > Is it sufficient to include the above text in the copyright file for > the package (with the MPL being included by reference to the URL), or > should I include the entire MPL? I think that the text would be sufficient, but I would feel more comfortable if the MPL was on the sys

Include entire MPL in nqc package?

I am working on packaging nqc, the Not Quite C compiler for the Lego Mindstorms set. The files in nqc are under the following license: /* * The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License * Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in * compliance with t