On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:54:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license.
I've never seen a GNU X11 license, nor is one listed at
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html.
There's
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:14:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s196.html
(s196 of the Copyright Act for Australia)
It's pretty clear that this context has to do with the transfer of
ownership on a copyright (which must be accompanied
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the
X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11
license to make it clear what I'm talking about.
This is the MIT X11 license:
: Copyright 1989 by
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that
the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms.
I don't understand, can you elaborate
4 matches
Mail list logo
