On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 17:24, Mark Rafn wrote:
The written offer option stinks. Ok, that's a pretty weak
counterargument, I'll think more about this.
I'm pretty confident that if 3(a) were not part of the GPL (leaving only
the written offer option), that the license would not meat the DFSG.
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:51, Jakob Bohm wrote:
I don't know, but if there are not, and a lot of people start
using such licenses, the big media companies are likely to get
their supporters in government to enact an amendment stating
that just because the copyright holders of *some* works
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 12:01, John Goerzen wrote:
My understanding, at least with Mozilla, was that it was dual-licensed as
MPL/GPL because of some problems with the MPL.
Actually, it's tri-licensed as MPL/LGPL/GPL, or at least that's the
goal. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ and
3 matches
Mail list logo
