On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:16:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2-clause BSD, as used by the NetBSD Foundation, would be good, too.
>
> Er. Be careful with this statement. The Foundation's policy has varied
> between at least (tha
Bitte erkundigen Sie sich nach der neuen Emailadresse auf unserer Homepage
http://www.greenseek.de .
Vielen Dank
das GREENSEEK Team
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
> > >
> > > If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
> > > li
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:20:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
> > > experiences with Apple
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
> > experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
> > Mac68K hackers.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
> >
> > If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
> > licenses it's under. The MIT/X11 license is non-exclusive.
>
> Well, i ask,
6 matches
Mail list logo
