Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
are (I believe) in the public domain.
Public domain RFCs (if
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were
not made by some IETF process.
rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc
source package.
Understood, but it seems that RFC 2810-2813 may have been improved by
the IETF
So given my idiocy I'm going to leave that detective work to someone
else. I think the general picture is slightly more clear than opaque now
though.
MWSBell
I mean with respect to looking in packages to find out if they have a
coder or a decoder.
So, we have a document that supports a
- About the datas :
- Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say the
GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias authors
and making the license change requires contacting all of them and they
don't see the point of doing this. Though, they told they will
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:12:40 +0200 Heretik wrote:
- About the datas :
- Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say
the
GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias
authors and making the license change requires contacting all of them
and they
On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:19:08 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:41:28PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:55:55 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Do I need to get the copyright holder of the documents to
relicense it under the GPL? It seems clear to me that
6 matches
Mail list logo
