On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 06:59 +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > Hi Sean! > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:12:00 -0500 (CDT) > "Sean C. Farley" <s...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >> functionality, however, the Citrus website is ambiguous about the > > >> license. > > > Really? > ambigous > > > Citrus is licensed under BSD License or variant (like > > > Perl or MIT). It can use with (L)GPL. > > > WWW: http://citrus.bsdclub.org/ > > OK. Technically, the website is not ambiguous. It is the license that > > is ambiguous. :) At least, they claim it is: > > Ah, OK. They, Citrus developers, consider that it is licensed > under BSD License on *BSD, at least. In fact, on NetBSD/OpenBSD, > it is licensed under BSD License, and we can use it under BSD > License. > > But it may be used on other environment like X. So it is licensed > under dual(multiple?) license. >
I thought that X.org was MIT/X11 licensed (which was very very similar to BSD). -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
