On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dawes wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> >David Dawes wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:05:06AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >>
> >>>I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
> >>>mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
> >>>investigating the license that applies to a file now have to check
> >>>every CVS commit log entry for that file as well as the file itself
> >>>to find out which license applies?
> >>
> >>
> >> Assume that anything attributed to me is covered by the 1.1 licence
> >> unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> >
> >You mean anything attributed to you in the existing copyright notice, or
> >in the CHANGELOG file?
>
> Everything I do is covered by the 1.1 licence unless I explicitly state
> otherwise.
For example, I seem to recall your committing changes such as
#if defined(SCO325) || defined(SCO) || defined(sco)
to
#if defined(__SCO__)
in response to a Bugzilla report by someone else. Reading your statement
above literally, it says that makes any modified code covered by the 1.1
license.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
