On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 06:31 p, Russell Nelson wrote: > I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these > licenses: > > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- > cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk
"Identical to the Apache Software License..." assuming that description is correct (there is neither a URL nor an available attachment), I don't see a need to comment. > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- > cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi Looks fine, although it's worth pointing out that they might have to go to court to get 'bug fixes' - what one person calls a bug, another person calls a feature (so fixing that bug might be "removing that feature"). I think. It's hard to tell, since I can't find that post in my archives and your webbing software helpfully removes all attachments (like the license). > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- > cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc <separate message> > This list was set up so that "outsiders" could have veto power over > licenses. That statement neither reflects the original stated purpose for this list, nor the manner in which it's been used in the past by the OSI. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3