I'd like to package the appscript-py python mod, but it comes with the
following license:
--
Copyright (C) 2006 HAS
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Tristan Thiede wrote:
> I'd like to package the appscript-py python mod, but it comes with the
> following license:
>
> --
> Copyright (C) 2006 HAS
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> obtain
Tristan Thiede wrote:
> I'd like to package the appscript-py python mod, but it comes with the
> following license:
>
> --
> Copyright (C) 2006 HAS
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software
I'd like to package the appscript-py python mod, but it comes with the
following license:
--
Copyright (C) 2006 HAS
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without re
On May 6, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Alexander Strange wrote:
The licensing documentation says
"BSD - for BSD-style licenses. This includes the so-called "original"
BSD license, the "modified" BSD license and the MIT license. The
Apache license also counts as BSD. With these licenses the
distribution of
On May 6, 2005, at 8:38 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Guys, you confuse me :) Should I use BSD or not, or something else?
thanks,
- Koen.
The licensing documentation says
"BSD - for BSD-style licenses. This includes the so-called "original"
BSD license, the "modified" BSD license and the MIT lice
Guys, you confuse me :) Should I use BSD or not, or something else?
thanks,
- Koen.
On May 6, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 2, 2005, at 19:58, Alexander Strange wrote:
That looks functionally identical to the BSD license with the
advertising clause.
I think you mean WITHOUT t
On May 2, 2005, at 19:58, Alexander Strange wrote:
That looks functionally identical to the BSD license with the
advertising clause.
I think you mean WITHOUT the advertising clause. The BSD advertising
clause says that the notice must appear in all ads, documentation,
etc. talking about the
On May 2, 2005, at 7:58 PM, Alexander Strange wrote:
That looks functionally identical to the BSD license with the
advertising clause.
So what should I use, 'BSD'? I didn't see the 'advertising clause' in
the packaing docs.
thanks,
- Koen.
--
On May 2, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Hi,
What license-type should I put in the info file for this text:
/*
* Copyright (c) Medical Research Council 1994. All rights reserved.
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
its
* documentation for any purp
Hi,
What license-type should I put in the info file for this text:
/*
* Copyright (c) Medical Research Council 1994. All rights reserved.
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its
* documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that
* thi
On Sep 24, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
Hi,
I'm packing a small utility for checking symlinks. The only
information concerning copyright is '(c) Mark Lord, freely
distributable'. I'm not sure on which license type this maps best.
I think I would put "OSI approved" (which really means: m
On Sep 24, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
Hi,
I'm packing a small utility for checking symlinks. The only
information concerning copyright is '(c) Mark Lord, freely
distributable'. I'm not sure on which license type this maps best.
Thanks for your advice.
Cheers,
Remi
Art
Hi,
I'm packing a small utility for checking symlinks. The only information
concerning copyright is '(c) Mark Lord, freely distributable'. I'm not
sure on which license type this maps best.
Thanks for your advice.
Cheers,
Remi
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
