On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:04:50PM +0200, Martijn van de Streek wrote: > 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 . I interpret all of the above as intent by the author, Luc Verhaegen, to license those changes under the specified license, the "MIT license". If that's playing too fast and loose for someone here, please let me know. -- G. Branden Robinson | Notions like Marxism and Debian GNU/Linux | Freudianism belong to the history branden@debian.org | of organized religion. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noam Chomsky
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature