On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 00:58 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> So I'll leave the source version out of the tree, but I'd like thoughts
> on using RPM as a solution? Also I don't know whether an exception
> could be made for Gentoo, but equally I don't know how to phrase one of
> them either (Gentoo Foundat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The website stills says GPL v3:
> http://nipper.titania.co.uk/licensing.php
Yep, the website's going to be updated for version 1.0 (with the license
change).
> ...
I can't really comment on a lot of this, unfortunately.
>
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:28:24PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> One of the packages I maintain (nipper) has recently undergone a change
> of license, from being GPLed to a new license that whilst mostly being
> commercial features a non-commercial/personal use element.
The website stills says GPL v3:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:28 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> but I thought I should ask what
> the best course of action would be here?
If it were my ebuild, I would not add the updates under the new,
draconic license and either fork the GPL'd code or mask the package for
removal.
You can not in any way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya guys,
One of the packages I maintain (nipper) has recently undergone a change
of license, from being GPLed to a new license that whilst mostly being
commercial features a non-commercial/personal use element.
Due to the new license (and the no re
