Are you sure you mean Clause 7? I'm looking at it, and that's just a definition of a "binary distribution".
http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Subversion+Commit+Policy On 4/5/07, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Timothy Normand Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not going to do anything further on it unless more people come to > some conclusion on it different from how they decided before. I was thinking about this lately, and I realized that I didn't articulate my actual concern about the license. If the work is dual licensed under the GPL, then it should be ok for someone who is reusing the code to completely replace the dual license blurb with a generic GPL license blurb (leaving the copyright notice in, of course), whereas those two clauses seem to imply that that's not ok to do. That's why I originally said that clause 7 should go to the start, and everything else should get moved out, because if someone relicenses the work under the GPL, they only really need to keep the definitions and the GPL blurb in.
-- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
