Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:31 AM
> To: 'Russell Nelson'
> Cc: 'OS Licensing'
> Subject: RE: CPL
>
>
> Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler
> than the CPL (or derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't
> specifically refer to the righ
> Sent: 25 February 2004 15:41
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'OS Licensing'
> Subject: RE: CPL
>
> Tony Linde writes:
> > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler
> than the CPL (or > derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't
> specifically r
Tony Linde writes:
> Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler than the CPL (or
> derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't specifically refer to the right to
> commercially distribute the code or any derivative code without being
> obliged to provide any source code. Is this, and simil
their omission from the text?
Thanks,
Tony.
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 February 2004 23:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: OS Licensing
> Subject: Re: CPL
>
> Tony Linde writes:
> > The goal is that an
Tony Linde writes:
> The goal is that any of the software we develop can be shared amongst the
> partner projects without limitations (save retaining copyright and
> contribution notices) AND that any code can be taken, adapted and used by
> any commercial concern without restriction (again sav
5 matches
Mail list logo