Re: Which license am I looking for?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: > Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts > 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on > http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say "products must contain warnings about nut

Re: Which license am I looking for?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: > > Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts > > 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on > > http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ > > Consider how hard it would be to have

GFDL 1.1

Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've googled a lot abou

dual-licensing question

I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing. Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Some contend that when redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL licenses

Re: dual-licensing question

Dean Landolt writes: > I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual > licensing. There's no canonical definition of the term that I'm aware of. > Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed > software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Ye

Re: GFDL 1.1

Hi Dimitrij, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, wrote: > Dear all > > Software in question: GnomeSword > Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later > > The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no > invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] > > I want to clarify tha