Re: licenses
"Kevin Sproul" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
That's correct. It isn't maintained much. It's not like important changes to the licensing landscape ocor often. Patch it to include the changes you sugest and post to this list. -----Original Message----- From: ante <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:34:41 +0200 Subject: licenses Hello, In the documentation for developpers, there is a policy about the licenses to use: http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/policy.html I do not see an author of this document, nor an e-mail adress. It seems not maintained. One of the licenses to use is the Artistic license. The group that made this license, later made the Clarified Artistic license, to clean up unclear things in the license. So, it would be better if the policy allows the Clarified Artistic, not the Artistic. Furthermore, the LGPL in cvs, http://webcvs.kde.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/kdelibs/licenses/LGPL_V2 is version 2 of the LGPL, an older version. Many libs will use that one, so it should stay in cvs, yet the newer version (2.1) should be up to. Cordialemente, Ante ****** http://home.uwnet.nl/~vita