Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Isn't there some kind of grandfather clause? We followed the "how to
> GPL" rules as they were when we did the first release. I'd rather
> update files as they are edited, rather than go through and patch 200+
> files in a couple development branches
Isn't there some kind of grandfather clause? We followed the "how to
GPL" rules as they were when we did the first release. I'd rather
update files as they are edited, rather than go through and patch 200+
files in a couple development branches.
--Barak.
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not sure what your message below means. Are you still evaluating
> Oaklisp, or was the material at the bottom the result of your
> evaluation?
>
> Oaklisp has been distributed under the GPL, with a COPYING file,
> since 1986. Do a Google search
I'm not sure what your message below means. Are you still evaluating
Oaklisp, or was the material at the bottom the result of your
evaluation?
Oaklisp has been distributed under the GPL, with a COPYING file, since
1986. Do a Google search and Oaklisp and you'll see what I mean.
Hi,
I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> This mail was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> described the package as follows:
> License:
