On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > At 10:22 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: > >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > > > >> the following packages have a "Restrictive" license: > > > >What is the working definition of restrictive? Non-GPL? Non-Berkeley? > >(Arguably, GPL is much more restrictive than BSD, but somehow I don't > >think that's a problem in this context). > > That is completly irrelevant.
It's relevant because I wasn't sure what 'restrictive' means here. I wasn't trying to be combative or anything -- I know you're busy and I'm not trying to create more work for you. > The question was whether the actual license of each of these > packages makes any restrictions on the distributions of binaries. And I got maybe a little too theoretical & realized that anything more restrictive than "public domain" ipso facto places restrictions, thus the comment about GPL v. BSD. I'm still not totally clear on what kinds of restrictions are problematic here... > >But like I say, I'm not sure what the criteria for "restrictive" are. > > Again, this is completly unimportant for answering the original question. I'm sorry, but I thought that is exactly what the original question was. I think I get it now -- I'll go look up policy on the site to be sure. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/ "More war soon. You know how it is." -- mnftiu.cc _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
