On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 09:21:41AM -0500, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
> Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?
>
> The reason for this is that when we publish GPL v3, it will be
> important for all GPL-covered programs to
Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?
The reason for this is that when we publish GPL v3, it will be
important for all GPL-covered programs to advance to GPL v3. If you
don't put this in the files now, the only way
A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
This mail was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Kavanagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> described the package as follows:
License: other
Other License: SQUALK is to be licensed under only the GNU GPL v2, as due to the
non-deterministic nature
