On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:59:36PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: > Bas Wijnen wrote: >> <snip> >>> I'm not quite sure what "compatible" license it is.. >> >> Compatible? With what? That's a word usually used with GPL licensed >> stuff. There isn't anything GPL in there, right? >> > Well I guess I was looking at stuff like "BSD-like" and such. I've just > put it as "other" for now with the text of the license. Ah. AFAIK you can only use the common-licenses links if the texts are word-for-word identical. With the GPL, this is normal, because it is under copyright, so people are not allowed to make minor changes and still call it GNU GPL (copyright might actually protect more than the name, I'm not sure in this case). However, with BSD licenses it isn't so simple. Appearantly many people have used the same license, which means the common-licenses file makes sense. But with any variation, the license must be copied into the package's copyright file. In this case, I'm pretty sure at least "CMU SUCKS" wasn't in the original license. ;-) > OK, another version of xlife is up on mentors for your kind review.. I've uploaded it. The copyright file isn't in machine-parsable format, because the long sections are not indented (so a parser would not consider them part of the field). But since that wasn't a requirement anyway, I ignored that. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature