[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Agreed, it's not DFSG-compliant as it stands. I don't think they really mean
> it to be, they just worded it badly. Want to talk with them?
I've fired off a letter, but all the addressed I have access to are 10 years
old and bounced. If anyone wants to track this down, b
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:35:41PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
>under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
>code ?
>
> Yes.
But only if the patc
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
code ?
Yes.
Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ?
Definitely not.
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
> > two 0.6.1 versions.
>
> This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new
> proprietary version
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license,
> which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the
> version number.
> Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
> two 0.6.1 v
5 matches
Mail list logo