On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:45:46AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads
to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a
prohibition against use in any particular field.
So what should I do in
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY
SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY.
This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY
SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY.
This is possibly problematic, depending on how
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:59:36 -0400 Charles Fry wrote:
As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know
which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree.
I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply
with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itself or
5 matches
Mail list logo
