Ok, just to see, I did a diff on any files that looked like they might have
been derived from the other... none of them matched a SINGLE LINE OF CODE,
except for silly things like opening/closing braces and a couple of #include
lines, and a comment or two. So I think that the source archive I have is a
complete rewrite, which makes the inclusion of the old license somewhat of a
mystery. But I think it means that it can go into main, since it appears to
not have to actually touch the 1989 license at all.
- cc65 license check -- main or non-free? Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 license check -- main or non-free? Matthew Palmer
- Re: cc65 license check -- main or non-free? Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 license check -- main or non-f... Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 license check -- main or n... Anthony DeRobertis
- Re: cc65 license check -- main... Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 licensing (was: c... Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 licensing (wa... Ullrich von Bassewitz
- Re: cc65 licensing Benjamin Cutler
- Re: cc65 licensing Ullrich von Bassewitz
- Re: cc65 licensing Michael Poole
- Re: cc65 licensing Ullrich von Bassewitz
- Re: cc65 licensing Michael Poole
- Re: cc65 licensing Ullrich von Bassewitz

