[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License review for lsblibchk

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 13:44, Matt Taggart wrote:

>      b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
>       distribute a modified version of this package, then
>       clauses 3c and 4c are required

3c is not good. Renaming might be fine (depends on the technical
effects), but having to include the standard version as well is not. 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: