Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
>>"joost" == joost witteveen <email@example.com> writes:
>> Do we produce two different xearth files, one under a GPL-like
>> license, and one under a non-mutable data license?
joost> That would be perfect (IMHO, anyway).
[yes, we can generate detached signatures for the data files]
joost> Note, I really don't care much if the licence for the second
joost> file is going to be GPL, GPL-like, or very-different-from-GPL,
joost> but allowing modificatinos and sale. I just think using GPL
joost> would be the easiest, as it's already written.
Is there a quorum for using an unmodified GPL for one option?
How do we recncile the fact that the database it self shall *not* be
distributed at all, just reports are generated and distributed? Can
we use the GPL in that case?
Oh, the internal representation of the database is likely to
be quite different (currently it is not a Packages file like
format, it is considerably more compact). It may move to a real DBMS
later (PostgreSQL?), if such is indicated.
Date: 28 Feb 90 02:03:37 GMT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Randal
Schwartz) $_ = <<END; s/../pack('C',hex($&))/ge; print;
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:email@example.com>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .