On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Alvin Oga <aoga@ns.Linux-Consulting.com> wrote: > > doesn't that depend on which "gpl" license ... ( there's over 40 "gpl" > license ... but only 2(?) gnu.org "gpl" license > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses Huh? This is the first time I've ever seen *anyone* refer to any license other than the GNU General Public License as "the GPL." There are indeed many other licenses that the Open Source Initiative certifies as open source licenses. But nobody refers to them as "GPL"s in any way. > mozilla's gpl There is no such item. Mozilla is licensed under the MPL, the Mozilla Public License. > "other gpl" terms The only GPL is the GNU General Public License. Using "GPL" to refer to licenses other than the GNU General Public License only breeds confusion. I've never seen anyone do it before your email. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Attachment:
pgpoPsh7D63t3.pgp
Description: PGP signature