On 7/14/07, chris evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But it has no sense. LPTtest is supposed to be a part of FreeDOS and FreeDOS
> >itself has own copy of COPYING. Why should every small binary to have own
> >copy of this license?
>
> >Maybe rather to spread it as public domain?
>
> I thought tha
>But it has no sense. LPTtest is supposed to be a part of FreeDOS and FreeDOS
>itself has own copy of COPYING. Why should every small binary to have own
>copy of this license?
>Maybe rather to spread it as public domain?
I thought that all was necessary in a program like this is a small comment t
Hi all,
I did some experiments with ieee1284 plug and play
handshaking, based on the docs on fapo.com ... Yes
I know that Public Domain means "everybody can do
everything with it, including removing any mention
of me as the author". Anyway. Here is what I found:
Default data, control, status in
Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Including a copy of the license with the
work is vital so that
everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.
Here's what Eben Moglen has got to say :
"The copyright status accorded to each author of a computer program, the
exclusive right
I responded to Ladislav in private on this matter, but since Eric
raises a few points, I'll respond to those here. License discussion
is getting off-topic from the original subject; if we need to continue
this discussion, let's switch to a new subject line.
On 7/13/07, Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED
