On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:05:06AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:05:06AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice.
I wrote the original question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] several days ago,
( http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05901.html )
her response was the now this was a joke right? line.
My response Al was private which is why Tom, and anyone else who looked, could not
find it.
David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:05:06AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
investigating the license that applies to a file now have to check
every
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Yep, I must have been kidding myself to believe the XFree86 License web
page when it said Refer to each source file for specific licence details
If you interpret that to apply to every revision of every file in
an active CVS
georgina o. economou wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
investigating the license that applies to a file now have to check
every CVS commit log entry for that file as well as the file itself
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
georgina o. economou wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
investigating the license that applies to a file now have to
Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
georgina o. economou wrote:
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
investigating the license that applies to a
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Ms. Economou's mail client appears to be unable to quote properly.
Probably should upgrade (at least to pine ;-)
I wrote the original question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] several days ago,
( http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05901.html )
I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
investigating the license that applies to a file now have to check
every CVS commit log entry for that file as well as the file itself
to find out which license
10 matches
Mail list logo
