On 11/3/13 7:36 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> 2013/11/3 Evan Huus :
>>> It appears to be licensed under GPLv3 only, which makes it
>>> incompatible for us to include.
>>>
>>> It seems to be included only because links/lynx didn't appear to work
>>>
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:40:59PM -0500, Evan Huus wrote:
> Good point - PIDL is already mentioned at the top of COPYING in this way.
I know :-)
> Now the question becomes, are we legally required to list *all*
> additional licenses in COPYING, or only when the license itself
> requires it? Ther
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:11:02AM -0500, Evan Huus wrote:
>> It appears to be licensed under GPLv3 only, which makes it
>> incompatible for us to include.
>>
>> It seems to be included only because links/lynx didn't appear to work
>> a while ag
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:11:02AM -0500, Evan Huus wrote:
> It appears to be licensed under GPLv3 only, which makes it
> incompatible for us to include.
>
> It seems to be included only because links/lynx didn't appear to work
> a while ago when building under WIndows. If that is no longer true
>
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2013/11/3 Evan Huus :
>> It appears to be licensed under GPLv3 only, which makes it
>> incompatible for us to include.
>>
>> It seems to be included only because links/lynx didn't appear to work
>> a while ago when building under WIndows. If
2013/11/3 Evan Huus :
> It appears to be licensed under GPLv3 only, which makes it
> incompatible for us to include.
>
> It seems to be included only because links/lynx didn't appear to work
> a while ago when building under WIndows. If that is no longer true
> then I think we can just remove it wi
