On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:37:16AM +0100, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > At 10.11 21/01/02 +0100, you wrote: > >On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:03:07PM -0800, Scott G. Miller wrote: > >> > > these rights are not reverted from the modified version or copy"). > >> > > >> > Public domain? > >> No, you can take public domain code, modify it and close source it. What > >> Oskar wants is a non-infective GPL (closer to the LGPL or MPL). > > > >No, what I want is an "infective" GPL without any requirements on the > >format of derived works - people can release it in any way they want, > >but they still have to let me copy and edit it (even if I have to do so > >with a hex editor). > > It will be quite interesting (at least for me) to know > the exact status of the project licensing. > > I remember to be told that the project "was under GPL, > were under GLP and always will be under GPL" > > In my opiniont this is a main question; don't do the same > error (IMHO) that is perpetuated for Mixmaster or other > crypto stuff ! > > Is for this reason that the site is not unde GFDL > (or any other license scheme AFAIK)?
Are you suggesting it should stay GPL or be changed to something else? -tc _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
