Re: License for VCP

2004-12-24 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:37:37AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Any work released under such a license can go in main, provided that * there is no indication that the copyright holder interprets the license in some unusual (and non-free) ways * the work is unencumbered by actively

Re: License for VCP

2004-12-24 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:02:49 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:37:37AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Any work released under such a license can go in main, provided that * there is no indication that the copyright holder interprets the license in some unusual

Re: License for VCP

2004-10-26 Thread Florian Weimer
* Piotr Roszatycki: I think it is BSD-like license with advertising clause. It looks more like a 3-clause BSD license, *without* the obnoxious advertising clause. Is it fit to the main archive? I think so. However, IIRC, Bastian Blank is working on packaging VCP and its dependencies.

Re: License for VCP

2004-10-26 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-10-26 10:16:21 +0100 Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it is BSD-like license with advertising clause. Is it fit to the main archive? At first glance, the licence appears to be BSD-like without advertising clause, so could go in main. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion

Re: License for VCP

2004-10-26 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:16:21 +0200 Piotr Roszatycki wrote: I think it is BSD-like license with advertising clause. Is it fit to the main archive? What you quoted is *exactly* the 3-clause BSD license, with *no* OAC (Obnoxious Advertising Clause). You can compare with