On 2006-08-29T13:36:41, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point of renaming them *gpl is that it would be impossible to
> accidentally link against one. Therefore anyone who is doing it, knew
> perfectly well what they were doing when they did it.
I'm not a lawyer, but legally spea
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2006-08-23T14:41:08, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
>> those who want to link to our libraries - which ones are under which
>> license.
>
> I _do_ agree we need to document which A
On 2006-08-23T14:41:08, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
> those who want to link to our libraries - which ones are under which
> license.
I _do_ agree we need to document which APIs/ABIs we want to support (if
any),
David Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Keisuke MORI wrote:
>
>> Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Matthew Soffen wrote:
I don't see it being any problem.
Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
>>>
>>> Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things c
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Keisuke MORI wrote:
> Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Matthew Soffen wrote:
> >> I don't see it being any problem.
> >> Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
> >
> >
> > Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
> > thos
Keisuke MORI wrote:
> Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Matthew Soffen wrote:
>>> I don't see it being any problem.
>>> Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
>>
>> Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
>> those who want to link to our librar
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Soffen wrote:
>> I don't see it being any problem.
>> Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
>
>
> Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
> those who want to link to our libraries - which ones are under
Matthew Soffen wrote:
> I don't see it being any problem.
> Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
Not that I know of. I just thought this might make things clearer to
those who want to link to our libraries - which ones are under which
license.
For those who are linking to our GPL
I don't see it being any problem.
Is there any "convention" that other projects use ?
Matt
Alan Robertson wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking about our conventions for naming libraries.
It seems to me to be somewhat confusing for the novice to tell which
libraries of ours are GPL and which are LG
Hi,
I've been thinking about our conventions for naming libraries.
It seems to me to be somewhat confusing for the novice to tell which
libraries of ours are GPL and which are LGPL.
So, I had an idea I'd like some feedback on.
How about if we named all our GPLed libraries libxxxgpl instead of j
10 matches
Mail list logo
