On 06 Jul 2007 11:47:26 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
Yes, "version 3 or later" would be fine.
Regards,
Mikhael.
Dominik Vogt a écrit :
Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
The license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
More information and discussion:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
No objection, Olivier
Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
>
> The license:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
>
> More information and discussion:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
Agree.
--
Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: renato 07/07/06 07:24:53
Modified files:
. : AUTHORS
Log message:
Updated my contibution list
On 7/6/07, Scott Smedley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dominik,
> Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
I'm happy for any of my contributions to be licensed using GPLv3.
(not that permission is required with the "v2 or any later version"
clause in the existing GPLv2 licence.)
Me too.
I'd like to
Hi Dominik,
> Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
I'm happy for any of my contributions to be licensed using GPLv3.
(not that permission is required with the "v2 or any later version"
clause in the existing GPLv2 licence.)
I'd like to see FVWM migrate to GPLv3 soon, allowing a reasonable time
(~1 mo
Should we upgrade to the GPLv3?
The license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
More information and discussion:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, dominik.vogt (at) gmx.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt07/07/06 02:12:46
Modified files:
. : NEWS
Log message:
Updated NEWS.
