Re: FW: license statements in CVS commit messages
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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!
Description: PGP signature
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]