I didn't originally send this to the list because, as I said, I don't
know what I'm talking about.
Dan Harkless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(Did you mean to send this directly to me and not to the list? I'd like to
>discuss this publically so we can all arrive at a conclusion -- if you
>respond to this mail, please do so to the list, if you're willing, and leave
>all the old quoted text.)
>
>Tommy Marcus McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I didn't want to jump in, because I have no idea what I'm talking
>> about, but can you do this? Isn't nmh a derivative of MH, and thus
>> licensed under whatever license that MH was distributed with? (I took
>> a quick look at the copy of MH that I have lying around, and couldn't
>> identify any overall license. Lots of individual copyright
>> statements, though.)
>>
>> I personally prefer the GPL, but I think the BSD license would be most
>> similar to the original (hypothetical) terms.
>
>For some reason I was remembering that MH had been released into the public
>domain (by Rand but not UCI??), but looking at the MH 6.8.4 source on
>cvsweb, I don't see any indication of this. In fact, there doesn't seem to
>be any explicit license allowing copying and use of the software, which I
>guess technically under copyright law means you can't copy/use it.
>
>In any case, the thing Richard has in COPYRIGHT that proclaims he holds the
>copyright over the whole package is certainly wrong...
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
>SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
Tommy McGuire
