On 3/8/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following post contains no value :-)
>
> On 3/8/06, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For process reasons the source code of
> > the libs will not be available
>
> > The jars would be free for copy, modification, usage,
>
The following post contains no value :-)
On 3/8/06, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For process reasons the source code of
> the libs will not be available
> The jars would be free for copy, modification, usage,
^
How can you allow modific
Thanx Ted and Peter,
MIT will do, I will suggest it to the customer, and it is really VERY
brief and understandable :-)
Emmanouil:
>IMO the libraries have very little value without the source code being
>available under an OS license
Normally I would agree, but in this case the MIT license will
> From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For process reasons the source code of
> the libs will not be available
Then LGPL is unsuitable.
> The jars would be free for copy, modification, usage, all the gpl
> stuff, but not available in sourcecode.
Apache and LGPL are often unnecessari
I'm sorry for OT, but I am pretty stupid with legal stuff, and after
carefully reading gnu und apache license packages I am as unknowing as
I was before. Here my problem:
I am trying to convince one of my customers to make some of the libs I
wrote for him public available. For process reasons the
