On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
licenses it's under. The MIT/X11 license is non-exclusive.
Well, i ask, because
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
Mac68K hackers.
Well,
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:20:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
licenses it's
Bitte erkundigen Sie sich nach der neuen Emailadresse auf unserer Homepage
http://www.greenseek.de .
Vielen Dank
das GREENSEEK Team
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:16:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
2-clause BSD, as used by the NetBSD Foundation, would be good, too.
Er. Be careful with this statement. The Foundation's policy has varied
between at least (that I
6 matches
Mail list logo
