> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > > I personally think that the relying on LGPL'ed code is completely > > reasonable. Some will disagree, so we need to come to a consensus on this > > as a community. Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. What are the consequences for those who redistribute software based on > or including perl6? This is a licensing issue that I do not feel > competent to address, and hence won't. I can likely help address these, when the time comes. What I expected would happen would be that other working groups would make a decision on the *technology*, roughly "ignoring" the licensing, and referring it to to the Licensing Working Group and saying: "Ok, what are the consequences if we use this." There seems no point in considering hypotheticals until a technological decision is made. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Tim Jenness
- Re: standard representations Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations David Grove
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- public domain? (was Re: standa... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Peter Buckingham
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Benjamin Stuhl
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty