Academic Free License (was: Re: RFS: The bobcat library, stealth and bisonc++)

On Friday 07 July 2006 18:11, Frank B. Brokken wrote: Hi List, Hello Lists, Frank, -legal, Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at: http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php this will serve as a future reference as well On June 30th, I sent in RFS's for my two programs

Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]

On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote: We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only to -legal; please respond there only. Sure. On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote: Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing question. While it

Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]

George Danchev a écrit : On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote: We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only to -legal; please respond there only. Sure. On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote: Well, I have the following 'and' vs.

Re: Academic Free License (was: Re: RFS: The bobcat library, stealth and bisonc++)

George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] -legal, Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at: http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php this will serve as a future reference as well In general, please quote licence texts inline for ease of commentary. However, in this case, please check

Re: Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]

Dual licensing is certainly workable for incompatible licenses, example MYSQL using GPL and Commercial licenses