Re: FW: license statements in CVS commit messages

["georgina o. economou" <xf86gee@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> georgina o. economou wrote:
> >I notice many of the affected files do not bear the license notice
> >mentioned in the checkin notice. Is that intentional? Will everyone
> >investigating the license that applies to a file now have to check
> >every CVS commit log entry for that file as well as the file itself
> >to find out which license applies? 
> >
> >now this was a joke right? you got a great sense of humour there.

Some of the quoting appears to be lost in this (Coopersmith's question,
and - I don't see it in my email - Economou's apparent followup).

> Yep, I must have been kidding myself to believe the XFree86 License web page
> when it said "Refer to each source file for specific licence details" or that
> it would continue under the "each file lists the license covering it" policy
> that X and most other multi-license open source projects have always used.

I'm playing by those rules.

> But then I suppose since I help people produce "copycat garbage", you would
> say I have no place even looking at XFree86 anymore.

hmm - who are you quoting?

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

 
 
----

Okay now everything's been moved over except for the original thread which I deleted because I'm given only so much space here.  I hear GMAIL will be better in that regard.

Let's try to keep this here and not go bothering everyone everywhere, okay guys?  THanks, I appreciate your cooperation.


 
 



_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature