Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one thing that tickles something in my memory is the similarity
> between this license and the Apache license, with regards to the
> restriction on using the name with derived products. There seems to be
> much controversy about the fact that ou
> From: Mark Kilgard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> An "an open bug against GLUT regarding the license"? That is so
> Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against
> a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day.
So I realize that this message shows a lack of cou
(주)ìì¤í°ê²ì´í¸ë ì¨ë¼ì¸ ì´ëíµì ì¼í몰ì í매ì ì 모ì§í©ëë¤.
ê·íì ë©ì¼ì£¼ìë ì¹ìíì¤ì ìê² ëê²ì´ë©°, E-Mail 주ì ì¸ì, ë¤ë¥¸ ì ë³´ë ê°ê³ ìì§ ìì¼ë©° ì íµë¶ ê¶ê³ ì¬íì ìê±° ì 목ì [ê´ê³ ]ë¼ê³ í기í
Scripsit Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you reply to my message, please CC me as I am not a subscriber to
> the list.
You forgot to tell us what the point of your message is. Do you have a
question about the license you gave a link to? If so, please state it.
--
Henning Makholm
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
>
> This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all?
I'm very glad that you guys are asking this question. Because you are
pointing out some of the serious flaws with the FDL that will
inevitably le
5 matches
Mail list logo
