I wrote:
> We have a number of documents with this sort of license. The consensus
> seems to be that this is acceptable for documents.
Joey Hess writes:
> I wasn't aware we had reached a consenssus on this point. I am opposed to
> that and I think others are too.
I was wrong. There is no consen
On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 09:05:41AM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:
> c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with
> sections 6 and/or 7 below. In order for a modification to be
> considered for inclusion in future versions of the Software it's
> author must grant the
Joseph Carter wrote:
>
/* c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with this
license. In order for a modification to be considered for
inclusion as
part of future versions of the Software it must also grant the
Copyright holder permission to license the modificat
Here's aj's reply...
--
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
--- Begin Message ---
(short summary: I don't have any real complaints (but I'm not Trolltech),
so if you're not interested in legal nitpicking from someone who's not
even a lawyer, skip this message.)
On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:16:
Forwarding my own message to the lists again as the original did not get
to kde-licensing for some reason (probably that it was only in the Cc)
and the reply didn't get to debian-legal (typo)...
I'll forward the reply as a reply to this message.
--
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
--- Beg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We have a number of documents with this sort of license. The consensus
> seems to be that this is acceptable for documents.
I wasn't aware we had reached a consenssus on this point. I am opposed to
that and I think others are too. This last time this came up we had a hu
6 matches
Mail list logo
