Well, GPL-2 as well as any other L for that matter is full of fine details. As
I said IANAL.
Thanks,
Latchezar
From: Gábor Csárdi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:25 PM
To: Latchezar (Lucho) Dimitrov
Cc: [email protected]; Sören Vogel; Carlo Albert; Roman
Good idea, Dirk, thanks for all notes and help.
Sören
> On 30.04.2015, at 13:15, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
>
> On 30 April 2015 at 06:12, JJ Allaire wrote:
> | On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
> | > I am curious about the phrase "distribute internally" - surely under G
On 30 April 2015 at 06:12, JJ Allaire wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
| > I am curious about the phrase "distribute internally" - surely under GPL,
| > that is still distribution and all modifications should thus be made public?
| > The GPL does not distinguish be
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
> I am curious about the phrase "distribute internally" - surely under GPL,
> that is still distribution and all modifications should thus be made public?
> The GPL does not distinguish between "internal" distribution and any other
> kind.
>
I am curious about the phrase "distribute internally" - surely under GPL,
that is still distribution and all modifications should thus be made
public? The GPL does not distinguish between "internal" distribution and
any other kind.
Soren, another possibility (and IANAL!) is to dual license your p
