Follow-up Comment #11, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #10 comment #10:] > > Was that correct? > > ladspa-tool-kit is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify ...
Err... we were speaking about copyright notices, and now you discuss license and license notices; don't you see the difference? Then, > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by ... > That's exactly what I want, that's why, I choosen, > even before pushing the package here, the LGPL version 3. > I thing following versions of LGPL will be trust worthy for me. *L*GPL? > It may be used for commercial use by someone else > and in that case I won't be able to claim anything. Well, you'll be able to claim something in any case. These are basic things, you should understand them. > I also don't want to deliver any working warranty, if one want to modify it > without sharing modifications with us and sell what he secretly added to LTK, that's not a problem for me. > As long as this man/woman, don't claim any warranty for what he/she cloned from this repository. Can you check the license you use again? What does it say, exactly, about warranties offered by the re-distributors? > I may have misunderstood something since I'm french, english is not my native language. Or because English isn't my native language, either; so our problem is twice as hard. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16044> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/