Nevin writes: > The work that Unicon is based on is public domain. It doesn't seem > right to me to put that work under a more restrictive license.
The differences between Unicon and Icon are currently GPL. As you point out, since Icon is PD the authors of Unicon can choose to put the entire Unicon source tree under GPL. I favour the GPL. (Other code I write is also under the GPL.) We welcome opinions on the licence that should be used. However, a discussion of whether or not the GPL is more or less free than PD (and/or BSD) is necessarily religious and belongs elsewhere. -s ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
