lars lamented,
> I'd say: Work with the FSF to make the GPL really say what it tries to
> say. I don't think Lyx should have its own GPL derived "corrected"
> lisence.
That doesn't solve our problem, though. As I'm reading it, lyx is ok
with what it says, but not with what it's accepted to say
I'd say: Work with the FSF to make the GPL really say what it tries to
say. I don't think Lyx should have its own GPL derived "corrected"
lisence.
Lgb
After sitting down and reading this thing this morning, I've come to a
legal conclusion (which isn't legal advice :): This thing is a
disaster, written by an amateur. It's largely well done for an
amateurish work, but it still shows.
It doesn't seem to actually include what either rms or h
