Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
with it.
Thanks
Bruce
On 4/17/2013 10:04 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Robin Winning robin.winn...@cyaninc.com writes:
I am a contracts manager
1.0 text is
self-invalidating. It's not so clear that a better drafted license would have
reduced us to basing the appeal on the economic value of attribution alone.
Thanks
Bruce
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what
happened
We appreciate what we got. But my point is that maybe with a well written
license Victoria Hall would have finished the case on her own in the lower
court.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal
to the
CAFC. So reading
on whether the suggested problems are
really problems.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana
font...@sharpeleven.org wrote:
The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I
believe was approved in haste
is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is
not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have
much worse.
Thanks
Bruce
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Bruce Perens scripsit:
And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities
at 10:15 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org
wrote:
Bruce Perens scripsit:
So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the
poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet
the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this
discussion
* *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another
message or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable.
Pretty often this sort of discussion has triggered an instant flame-fest.
And I have to agree with John. If there's a breach of civility, direct
confrontation is unlikely
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL
also considered unfree when applied to
intellectual property audit in better shape than otherwise.
I do know a company that spent money, including on me, to argue just
this sort of issue recently. They spent more than most businesses would
be able to endure.
Thanks
Bruce
On 01/01/2013 05:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Really
The documentation license isn't OSD compliant, it limits number of
copies and disallows derivative works.
The software license looks like it could be.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
On 09/10/2012 01:38 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Karl Fogel (kfo...@red-bean.com):
It's better to question reasoning than motivations, on this list and probably
most others.
Karl,
I question why you didn't call a halt when the discussion was obviously
becoming a testosterone contest past
On 09/07/2012 11:24 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
I don't think you are approaching this discussion with a serious attitude,
attention to the subject, and/or a sense of perspective.
Is this really a serious discussion?
It sounds to me more like a contest of how many silly things some of us
can get
as such.
We had no power to issue waivers, since we weren't the copyright holder
of the software.
Thanks
Bruce
On 09/06/2012 02:55 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
The difficulty is that text often winds up in printed books, and then
you either have
? Is the answer the same across all jurisdictions?
It is easier to print the GPL than it is to even /start /analyzing
questions like rights in a compilation vs. rights in a collective work.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Larry wrote:
I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license
statement in the source tree of each program that points to the
OFFICIAL version of that license on the OSI website.
You are very optimistic regarding the longevity of OSI.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description:
.nabble.com/Licensing-for-textures-within-SVG-files-td1473913.html
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org
Arguing the merit of plain text vs. HTML is just Lilliput v. Blefuscu.
Provide both, for different reasons.
Plain-text is a better source for cut-and-paste operations.
In general plain text divides the actual license text from any attached
commentary, making it clear which is which.
There is
in the United States, there is moral rights law, but it is
often in state law. For example, the California Art Preservation Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Art_Preservation_Act
Thanks
Bruce
On 07/16/2012 07:16 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote:
The reasoning behind it is to give credit
regarding Java. It made it even more clear
that the functional part of the Java specification was not
copyrightable. You get to use the constants, function names, etc. The
problem would not be copyright, but patents.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
On 07/05/2012 06:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other
people outside the FSF don't listen.
It is not permissible to modify the GPL text directly. That restriction
has teeth. However, I can't think of a legal mechanism that could be
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it
On 06/09/2012 01:53 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Read caselaw. I'm done.
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between separate
works and that connections across APIs do not create derivative works.
And this is
because it makes them look stupid.
What you need is a contract, not a license. In general the Open Source
licenses only deal with copyright, and you can't compel some action
unrelated to copyright, like publication of research results, with a
simple license.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment
what you want as a guideline, and live
with the fact that not everyone will follow it.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
.
It's worth discussing with Brad Kuhn. Maybe he'll see a way.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org
granted, the answer would be different.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
requirement on that subject.
...
If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't
necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2
implies it.
In other words, do what has previously been done, but consistently.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
be much
of a problem.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
It is indeed the case that the failures I see are in companies rather
than among charity developers. However, it's a stretch to state that
they already pay for lawyers! I sometimes get paid to read their
depositions and explain them to the judge. Invariably, the failure is by
an engineer or
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On the other hand, a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11 sanction
is beyond the means of someone who cannot afford a competent attorney.
Since Olson was a Free Software developer, EFF provided his attorney
pro-bono.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment
otherwise could
have.
Of course, Larry, I understand that this is not what you think should
happen. However, it appears to be how a lawsuit or something that could
have become a lawsuit has been resolved, in every case that I know of.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/02/2012 11:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen
On 03/02/2012 11:34 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that
writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help.
Sure. But folks who have asked me for help got me free, and I've
sometimes found them an attorney too. This is something I would
The fact that we have not resolved some questions doesn't mean that we
don't have /any/ bright lines. I have previously published guidelines
that would keep you far from any fuzzy issues, while allowing you to
build whatever you wish.
On 03/01/2012 07:42 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Which is as much
On 03/01/2012 08:02 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
How do I know if this license applies?
Just assume it does, because you don't really have to decide this
question to be safe.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 03/01/2012 08:32 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
I am not at all sure that line works once you get into trying to
bridge GPL'd and proprietary apps
Read
http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3801396/Bruce-Perens-Combining-GPL-and-Proprietary-Software.htm
Does it matter how I do this?
Very
wouldn't lose the courts
or the arguing over what something really means.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
On 02/26/2012 02:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
realism instead of a more-restrictive license.
When the terms are grants, or specifications of what must be granted in
derivative works.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
that they might not understand.
2. Provide them with a license that won't hold up in court.
The second damages them more. The first can be solved with explanation
separate from the license.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
of the talk, there is no credible political organization
working against software patenting today. In the past I've tried to get
support for one, to no avail.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
written in crayon. You can protect your friends by not
encouraging them to do that.
Thanks
Bruce
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
On 12/20/2011 11:41 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Can you tell me how many licenses are in Fedora? If it's 300, it's
something of a self-created problem, but then you'd be in lots of
company.
The numerosity itself is not a problem
This is how an attorney confirms an unpleasant truth. 300
, and their assigns know nothing of Open
Source or even that they own the property. Some (like an early but still
relevant SSL developer) are contractually bound to never touch that
software again.
Rod Dixon:
Wow! I must add that I do not think I would have seen a comment like
this posted by Bruce
Sorry, I missed that it wasn't intended for submission.
The author should back up and state a /list of goals, /rather than
present the argument as pseudo-legal drafting.
Thanks
Bruce
On 12/16/2011 10:23 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
It was never submitted -- I don't think Clark intended
to damage our own community.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
or through insults and intimidation.
However, I realize that argument must seem a little fuzzy,
and perhaps a little too idealistic as well, for all of you
lawyers :-).
Thanks,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm pretty sure the OSD is concerned solely
the worst thing you can say about a group of peers.
By the way I don't think Sean's a hateful person. I don't
even think he cares whether anyone uses his license. I just
think he was having some fun at our expense.
Sincerely,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED
I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative
aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous
revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between
brevity and precision.
May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last
license in the AFL 1.x series, based on
to
redistribute it either.
- Bruce - IANAL -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeremy Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: C. Hamacher [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problems in Open Source Licensing
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:26:45 -0500 (EST)
Jeremy Malcolm scripsit:
[L]et's take
OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
OF THIS SOFTWARE.]
--
Regards,
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin
So far, no discussion. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
http://www.geocities.com/brucedodson.rm/hist_pnd.htm
Regards,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: discuss: approval request
[ Please discuss this template. It's a clever idea. You'd have
thought that someone would have thought of it before. Bruce has
sent a few changes since his submission. Please consult his web page
(URL at bottom) for the exact current submission. -russ ]
I would like to ask that the following
The pain you speak of, is this from a purely legal stand point?
If so, in what manner does it hinder or cause pain to an end user?
I'm not a lawyer so I never speak from a legal standpoint, even when I'm
talking about licenses. The pain is from a technical standpoint. If I make
a modification
Is it true that changing proper names is not a problem? I had always been
of the impression that, e.g. I couldn't just use the Apache License, change
the proper names, and call my software OSI Certified.
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I urge you instead to see
to the next, and can be months. However, I just
want to know that I'm in the queue.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
or whatever. Now I have that. Thank you; now I can go back to
waiting, more patiently than before.
I'm a volunteer, Bruce, with a TODO list longer than your arm. The
problem with license submittals is that I try to pre-vet them, so that
the license-discuss people don't have to waste their time
The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions
of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. At
least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this requirement to
distribute patches into something that's optional. But it's confusing the
the software that I want to write and also give it away,
and I don't really expect... [CFC]
If you're serious about this, tweak your expectations.
-bruce
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http
that is by closed
source, shared source, semi-free), I believe it could hurt the open
source community, since it could take mindshare away from legitimate open
source CASE projects like ArgoUML.
-bruce
_
The new MSN 8: advanced
The amount of damages that courts would award might vary considerably from
one jurisdiction to the next, even if the license is interpreted exactly the
same way. Without naming any names wink, some countries are just more
litigious than others; some courts, more punitive.
- Original Message
with the warranty. I would no longer let
it stop me from using AFL in situations where I might currently use MIT or
Apache-style licenses.
bruce
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Bruce Dodson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November
From: Mike Nordell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Dodson top-posted:
Derivative Works means derivative works based upon the Original Work,
as
upposed to derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters, or
derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks.
Since the definition
I disagree. (I know, I do that a lot, but I mean well.)
It's best if licenses are simply either approved or not approved. There is
no list of licenses that have been rejected or withdrawn; that would be
punitive. By the same token, there should be no special status given to
licenses in limbo.
I would like to suggest that a license template like the one below be put
forward for approval by the OSI board.
This is not really intended for new software. Nevertheless it's pragmatic
to approve it since many OSD-compliant licenses follow this template.
Examples include Scintilla/SciTE,
to create [Derivative
Works]. It says to prepare [Derivative Works]. Like when you're
preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something
that you can eat. No offense, but Duh.
Cheers,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Mike Nordell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
I can offer something without entering a relationship with each recipient.
I have software published on SourceForge; I entered into an agreement with
SourceForge but I have no relationship with the people who downloaded my
stuff from there. The people who downloaded might or might not have a
the original owners to pay the
veterinary expenses based on some theory of implied warranty? If I had
decided to return her, could I have expected to be compensated some amount
so I could buy a replacement cat from Pets R Us?
Don't be stupid, Bruce, of course not, says my conscience.
Does the law
I took it to mean any technical documentation which is provided by a
licensor, which may make the source code more accessible to a licensee.
Then you would be compelled to provide such documentation as was provided to
you when you received your copy of the source code. So, access in the
sense of
(Larry said...)
Not if it ain't a Derivative Work, I'd say.
...
What do you think?
I think the same. Common sense tells me that a book that isn't a derivative
work should be outside the scope of the contract. This concept is probably
non-technical enough that even a judge would be able to
to create a more clearly enforcible GPL-like license, Larry
has relied on _use_ restriction rather than restriction of the creation of
derived works in his new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
to sublicense, which is more complicated so it's
generally not handled that way.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it doesn't. The GPL only has a few minor terms covering use. The
GPL relies on the act of distribution for enforcing its conditions.
And those conditions mostly hinge on the right to create derived works
rather than the right to use.
Bruce
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
this
with something that is more clearly enforcible but rely on a use
restriction.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I
won't venture any ideas.
It would be very helpful for me (and I assume for some others) to see some
public discussion of how / whether this warranty would work in practice.
If a discussion like that happens here, I promise to stay out of it!
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E
I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying, but I for one consider
it an unfair tactic to try to discourage RSW from seeking approval. Russ
and other board members may think he is misguided in believing that others
will want to use his license, and might even be right, but that does not
For what it's worth, so far Netscape has been very responsible and careful
about not making ad-hoc changes to their license. Look at the trouble
they've been going to recently, to try and get all of their code
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed. It would have been easy to take advantage of
their right
they said. Too
much was said in private email for me to form an opinion. I can only look
to the result, which was an RSW discouraged to the point where he was ready
to say have a nice life and walk away.
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Bruce Dodson
might be important for AFL due to the embedded patent license -
the licensor might have a patent on the software, and might not be a
copyright holder. However this is just a guess.)
I am not a lawyer,
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
and is made available
under the following license. The copyright holders do not intend
for these license terms to form a contractual agreement.
Does that make sense?
Bruce (IANAL / YANML)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I kept my own email short because I knew there were other people, better
qualified to speak on this. Rod, thanks for stepping forward. You
presented the facts more thoroughly than I could. By the way, although you
say you disagree with me, I don't think I disagree with you. I'm not sure
opinion that you read on the Internet.
(Follow the references back to the source; the quotes under patches both
seem to be taken out of context. If you read them in their intended context
you might find that they don't support Mr. Bernstein's opinion nearly as
well.)
Bruce
- Original Message
Er, I agree. :-). But, as an open source author, does the limitation of
liability protect me? The contract that the end user clicked is between the
distributor and the end user; does it protect the original developer, who is
a third-party? (Or is the distributor is seen as an agent,
Here, here. I agree completely that this would be absurd. Yet I still
worry. Hopefully the law will eventually agree with us on this point.
In Canada we have a good samaritan law; I don't know whether something
like that exists in the USA. The good samaritan law says that, in an
Let me try to make it clear that I know the good samaritan laws don't apply
to software or any other non-emergency situation - only for emergencies,
where the time it takes to get a waiver signed could otherwise cost a life
(or a house). I am also quite aware that liability has nothing to do
control of the enivronment, perhaps
click-through is appropriate, but I still would oppose allowing it to
be a license requirement. A license that requires it is going to cause
us no end of trouble with the environments where we can deal with the
problem more easily.
Thanks
Bruce
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
expression of bafflement?
Sure, no problem.
Or are you going to simply blame me for the confusion and lack of legal
understanding on the part of *some
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1, I would ask another question:
aside from ease on the license
of the _OSD_. The question was whether or not
the OSD should allow a license that requires click-wrap. I mantain that
it's not appropriate for the OSD to allow it.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
[Whew!] I'm glad I checked this again before going to bed.
From now on until this approval process is done, I will talk about my
WILLINGNESS to make changes here on the list first, but I will not actually
MAKE the changes until someone from OSI tells me whether that will help or
harm my bid for
of this
license agreement, or by a pointer stating where the complete
license is found.
regards,
bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I thought this process was one in which the license is submitted for
discussion, minor revisions are made if needed, and the license is
eventually accepted or rejected.
From your web page describing the approval process: 6. At the same time, we
will monitor the license-discuss list and work with
license just because they exercised
their right to use it. This is part of the reason why, for example, the
GPL's teeth are attached to things like modification and distribution. For
most people (except lawyers) this is not a problem - after all, what harm
can an isolated end user do?
Regards,
Bruce
. They confirmed that, when the
GNU Copyleft provision is included, a license created from this template
is GPL compatible. So, that question is now put to rest and we can focus on
the other aspects of the license, such as its ability to stand on its own.
Regards,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From
I think the GPL itself would be fine for web pages, as long as you make it
clear that your page content is source code as far as you're concerned. You
can do that by putting the GPL's license notice in a comment block. But the
trouble there, I guess, is that GPL's idea of linkage doesn't mesh
to
look at the final draft, it's at this URL:
http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html
http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.txt
Thanks again,
Bruce
_
Chat with friends online, try MSN
source
component is an Adobe Photoshop plugin, it may reasonably depend on
Photoshop. (No one will be put out by this because the only people who
would want that software are those who have Photoshop.)
Although I haven't quite answered your question, I hope that helps.
Bruce
From: Edwin
Do your recipients have permission to distribute the two closed-source
frameworks freely with their apps?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
