On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicolas Kratz wrote:
OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:45:36AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have
merely repackaged is not considered good form.
It's not just bad form.
It's not even valid if one has not made any original contributions to
the work. Matthew
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard
6 matches
Mail list logo
