On 04/22/2010 01:45 AM, Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> But it should be explicitly stated anyway. Legalese isn't English.
> Note: IANAL
Well, there is nothing in the FPCA that says we will accept or use your
contribution, even if it is acceptably licensed. :)
I'm not sure there is a lot of mer
But it should be explicitly stated anyway. Legalese isn't English.
Note: IANAL
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:15 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
> > i looked at this (and the MIT license) didn't see any explicit reference
> > to source code! (e.g.
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:15 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
> i looked at this (and the MIT license) didn't see any explicit reference
> to source code! (e.g. , that it must be made available.)
Indeed. For an MIT licensing regime to be considered "free", the
original author must provide the source.
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
On 4/19/10, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Hello Fedora! (Is this thing on?)
>
> Sorry for the very wide net, but we wanted to make sure as many members
> of our community could see this as possible.
>
> For some time now, Fedora has been working w
