Re: License question

1998-06-17 Thread John Goerzen
Thanks to those of you that commented on this. The author replied to my e-mail, saying "GPL is cool for me!" so our problem is solved :-) John Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I've already written to the author, but can y'all tell me if the >following license is acceptable in main

Re: License question

1998-06-17 Thread John Goerzen
"Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Gotcha. Well, I think that the license could be made more explicit > > about permitting redistribution, etc., but as is I don't see any > > actual problems. > > I would suggest you email the author for clarification. I have already sent him an e-mail

Re: License question

1998-06-16 Thread Jules Bean
--On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 4:09 pm -0400 "Ben Pfaff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>PilRC is freeware. >>... >>Source code is available. You are free to make enhancements, but please >>send the changes back to me so I can fo

Re: License question

1998-06-16 Thread Ben Pfaff
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >PilRC is freeware. >... >Source code is available. You are free to make enhancements, but please >send the changes back to me so I can fold them into the main sources. > > I see no problems with either clause, but what d

Re: License question

1998-06-16 Thread John Goerzen
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >PilRC is freeware. >... >Source code is available. You are free to make enhancements, but please >send the changes back to me so I can fold them into the main sources. > > I see no problems with either clause, but what did you leave out in >

Re: License question

1998-06-16 Thread Ben Pfaff
I've already written to the author, but can y'all tell me if the following license is acceptable in main? PilRC is freeware. ... Source code is available. You are free to make enhancements, but please send the changes back to me so I can fold them into the main sources. I see