This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second
opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
Interestingly, there is this accompnying binary license:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second
opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
There's a general you must monitor our website clause. It
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:20:43AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second
opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
By accessing and using the
Joey Hess writes:
This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second
opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
Who said that was OSI certified? It seems unlikely and counterintuitive
to
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Who said that was OSI certified? It seems unlikely and counterintuitive
to me, and it's not listed in OSI's current Approved Licenses list.
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/whatsnew.html:
Open Source license
Joey Hess writes:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/download.html:
graphviz is now OSI Certified Open Source Software.
I'm checking with the OSI Board about that. I think there is likely some
mistake.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study
Chris Lawrence wrote:
It highly inconveniences our users, however. No part of the Social
Contract says protesting stupid laws is more important than our users.
How does it inconvencience our users?
It also inconveniences the Debian maintainer, who has to maintain two
different forks of the
7 matches
Mail list logo
