On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Advanced Linux Programming is published under the Open Publication
> License, Version 1, no options exercised. (Due to an oversight in final
> production, the copyright notice on the book is incorrect.) The full
> text may be
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:10:28AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> With no options exercised, I believe the OPL is free (dim memory of a
> conversation with Bradley Kuhn here, but it may have got garbled in
> transit). -legal?
>
Yep. I think almost every available optional clause makes the
license
Are you looking for effective traffic to your website? Look no further...
**
For the first time on the Internet, Trafficdelivered.com offers you a
centralised means or ordering high-quality traffic, with a members area wher
On Oct 21, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> > With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
> > case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free.
>
> It can be placed in contrib. "free package
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 21, David Starner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> > > With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
> > > case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in c
On 16 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have. Try the "Choral Public Domain License"
>> (http://cpdl.snaptel.com/license.htm), which is essentially the GPL with
>> "software" replaced by "music". Was constructing that licence a
>> copyright infr
6 matches
Mail list logo
