On 12/10/06, Robert T Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm composing correspondence to yale.edu to try to update the license > for freehelix and would like input on some text in my communication to > them. Here's the pertinent part: > > <quote> > Currently the package is being distributed under the "Restrictive" > license. Primarily, this means that 1) the fink project does not mirror > the source code and 2) the fink project does not distribute the package > in binary form. Changing the license to "Restrictive/Distributable" > would preserve the authors' copyrights yet allow the fink project to > mirror the source and distribute binary builds of the package. > </quote> > > Are these statements true and accurate? Is there something else that I > need to include (I have already included a link to fink's license > policy)? Is there a better license suggestion I should make besides > "Restrictive/Distributable"? > Hello,
Last time I looked there were two parts to the complete player. The helix player was free (GPL?) and was of limited use by itself, and there was the real(media) codec, which is restricted proprietary binary only thing. Depending on the stuff you distribute you get either yet another free player or a free player with a very restricetd codec. Thanks Michal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
