In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I have placed them in the Public Domain.
PD is the most free 'license' possible.
> This is all 100% my own work.
Means he has the right to PD the work.
> Usage is totally
> unrestricted. If you want to make derivative works for any
> purpose, please go
Hello,
I found a strange permission notice in a program, referring to the GPL,
and I'm not sure about its meaning.
The program claims to be licensed as follows:
|
| License:
| Most recent version of the GPL.
|
I've never seen anything like this.
I saw "GPL v2 or later", "GPL v2 only", "GPL" (wh
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:14:44 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Should I ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to provide an authoritative answer
> > about this situation?
>
> I think that in this case, the meaning of the statement depends on the
> author more than the FSF. However,
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> I found a strange permission notice in a program, referring to the GPL,
> and I'm not sure about its meaning.
>
> The program claims to be licensed as follows:
>
> |
> | License:
> | Most recent version of the GPL.
> |
>
> I've never seen anyt
On 12/5/06, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All of those need to be qualified by *whose* GPL; that's why the
recommendation for licensing a work under the GPL is "[...] GNU
General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation
[...]".
It could be interpreted as the Affero G
6 matches
Mail list logo
