Joerg Mayer schrieb:
> Maybe what we actually need are different license files for the source
> and the binary distribution. The binary distribution contains less files
> (notably pidl) then the source.
I guess it will be a bit confusing to have two different licenses - so I
would like to avoid th
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:28:15AM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> I've checked in Joergs patch with some minor "wording changes" from me.
> While it's better than what we currently had before, I'm still *pretty
> unhappy* with it.
Maybe what we actually need are different license files for the sour
Gerald Combs schrieb:
> The patch looks good to me too. Joerg, can you check it in? I'm going
> to get 0.99.7pre1 out tomorrow.
>
I've checked in Joergs patch with some minor "wording changes" from me.
While it's better than what we currently had before, I'm still *pretty
unhappy* with it.
Stephen Fisher wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:30:17AM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:20:12PM +0100, Jaap Keuter wrote:
>>> So even though I'm not happy with this stuff it seems to be needed to
>>> keep *stupid* people of our lists.
>> I obviously think so too, but tha
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:30:17AM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:20:12PM +0100, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > So even though I'm not happy with this stuff it seems to be needed to
> > keep *stupid* people of our lists.
>
> I obviously think so too, but that doesn't mean we shoul
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:20:12PM +0100, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> So even though I'm not happy with this stuff it seems to be needed to
> keep *stupid* people of our lists.
I obviously think so too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't add some
explanations around our
additions. Also, the disambuguiti
Hi,
Looking at the history the main part was added by Gerald in revision
21806. Yes, it should be clear to anyone what the GPLv2 means but in
real life you get some *stupid* questions on it. (I'm all for the view
that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, but here I make
the exce
One of the core reasons why the explanations were added was a rather
regular stream of questions regarding the use of Wireshark. It started
with me adding a section that emphasizes that libwireshark is covered
by the GPL, not LGPL. Later on other stuff was added and I think that
the amount of quest
On Nov 11, 2007 7:59 PM, Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:25:18PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
> > While i was updating the NSIS installer, I had a look at the current
> > COPYING file and was pretty sad reading the following preamble to the
> > GPL:
>
> > Unfor
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:25:18PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> While i was updating the NSIS installer, I had a look at the current
> COPYING file and was pretty sad reading the following preamble to the
> GPL:
> Unfortunately, this text spreads a lot FUD and it is redundant.
>
> IMHO, the GPLv2
Hi List!
While i was updating the NSIS installer, I had a look at the current
COPYING file and was pretty sad reading the following preamble to the GPL:
> Wireshark is distributed under the GNU GPL. There are no restrictions
> on its use. There are significant restrictions on its distributio
11 matches
Mail list logo
