On di, 2004-06-15 at 14:31 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > If it can be verified that he is not doing "aggressive relicensing", then it > is safe. If he is doing "aggressive relicesning" like Dawes, who claims > that all his additions after some date or other are under the XFree86 1.1 > license, then these two tiny bits are not safe. > > Unfortunately, it's important to ask. Branden said it looked OK on IRC, so I went ahead with the patching. If you read the project's mailing lists, you'll see lots of comments about the 1.1 license, for example: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=7730841 and this thread: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=7599303 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=7599305 Also, all source files have only the "MIT license" header -- if that means anything . -- Martijn van de Streek <martijn@foodfight.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part