On 27/06/2014 20:43, John Lauro wrote: > Looking at the license it sounds like there is not any such > restrictions, but you would have to look at the individual software > to verify, but exceptions should be mainly 3rd party binary only > code...
Interesting. I can only presume that there are newer or other licences with other restrictions (e.g. the "some cases" in this clause: "subject to certain obligations in some cases"). > One reason to remove public sources is to keep the load off of their > servers. Yes, that's one reasons. There are other reasons too, of course. My might will infer that other reasons are the overridingly significant ones in this case. ;-)
