Hi Joep,
Dual licensing is on purpose:
- ZLIB for libraries: people using libraries doesn't have to mention
jallib when they deliver binary forms
- BSD (or ZLIB) for samples: people can choose about licensing their work,
no restriction or some (very little) restriction. I think that's because
some sample could be considered as application.
I think JSG mentions BSD as a header example, that's all. JSG executable
("jallib validate") expects either BSD or ZLIB.
Cheers,
Seb
2011/6/10 Joep Suijs <[email protected]>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Until now I assumed that all real jal files (that is, the ones with
> .jal extension) of jallib are under zlib license, but this seems not
> the case. It is a mix of zlib and bsd.
> The JSG seems clear about this, since it states bsd. However, this is
> there since juli 2008, before the zlib discussion, so it could be
> outdated. A search of the group on bsd or zlib gives so many hits that
> it's hard to find any messages on the topic, so I just ask:
> Is it indeed on purpose that we have JAL files with bsd-license?
> If not, I'd suggest we stick to zlib.
>
> Joep
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jallib" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
>
>
--
Sébastien Lelong
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
