On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Hrm, right as well. So why not split the Restrictive license class into two:Sounds good to me..
Restrictive
RestrictiveButDistributable
(well, obviously with better names). That would seem more logical to me than a seperate field.
how about...
Restrictive - (maybe they have restricted it to non commercial use or something, but binary distro is OK)
BinaryRestrictive - (means binary distro is not OK)
We'd have to update most of the current "Restrictive" package licenses to say BinaryRestrictive, but thats not too hard, there aren't that many.
btw, the silly "non-commercial" clause that dmalloc added to our license page is still in CVS. Needs to go, its wrong. We are GPL.
-Ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com
Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing
SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
