"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation,
since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or
distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'.
All the documentat
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> >[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
>
> Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
Right :)
> >The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
> >may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if
"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any condi
Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
> may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
> as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
> incorporate this code into your ow
Hi,
I'm packaging a set of Glk user interface libraries [1], which are
distributed under a custom license, included below. In my limited
understanding this is both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, but I'd like
to be sure about this. The libraries are going to be linked against
GPL- and BSD-licensed c
6 matches
Mail list logo
