On Tuesday 20 August 2002 06:53 am, Jonathan Angliss wrote:
> The source would have to be freely available for it to be classed as
> Open Source, in which case they may as well turn the windows version
> Open Source too. They may be able to release binary versions under
> maybe the GPL license for example at which point I don't think source
> code needs to be distributed. I've not read the GPL license fully
> myself.
Man how much do you guys know about linux. A program doesn't have to be open
source. Especially in the case of the bat. There are many companies that put
out programs for linux without it being open source.
One last thing I ment offical as in why don't we discuss it here.
--
-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
Brook Humphrey
Mobile PC Medic, 420 1st, Cheney, WA 99004, 509-235-9107
http://www.webmedic.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Holiness unto the Lord
-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
________________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
