On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:43, David R. Morrison wrote:
I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence
The programs are not in the
public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing
fees.
From /usr/share/doc/libglut3/copyright on my Debian system:
Am Dienstag, 01.04.03 um 03:49 Uhr schrieb Ben Hines:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Dienstag, April 1, 2003, at 03:49 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote:
snip
distribution is allowed without license.
To cut things short. I ran this by our lawyers and here is what they
said:
This type of license indicates that you may distribute the
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is
mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing
binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky.
Many licenses don't mention binaries.
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is
mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing
binaries, its just a general
Hi Dave,
Must of had a esp moment as I had just drafted an email to you
regarding the glut license field, I will add a
'Restrictive/Distributable' licence field to it sometime today as I
also have to add a missing 'BuildDependsOnly: True' field to it as well.
Matt
On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
(Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a
licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting
licensing fees.)
Actually, I think that clearly means that they letting you distribute
it
