From:	"Johan Venter" <jventer AT writeme DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Tnvx3.6784$ei1 DOT 13774 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 19990830230922 DOT 0090d100 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br>
Subject:	Re: Can we vote on letting RSXNTDJ rest in peace?
Lines:	27
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:	<fdNy3.8910$ei1.18011@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:58:40 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host:	139.134.163.73
X-Trace:	newsfeeds.bigpond.com 936091595 139.134.163.73 (Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:26:35 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:26:35 EST
Organization:	Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Cesar S. Rabak <csrabak AT ipt DOT br> wrote in message
news:3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 19990830230922 DOT 0090d100 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br...
> Agreed and seconded. Now _my_ (another :-) ) real question: does the way
> Rainier put his license allow this? If yes, as I mentioned earlier, we
> could end up with a similar rebirth as happened with GRX (BTW a good
point,
> because is a success story), if not, IMHO we are stuck again with the need
> to get an answer from the author!

I recently got a reply from Rainer, here is a part of that message
reproduced:

"fixing rsxntdj: Why not? (I don't have time for it)
rsxntdj 1.50 is distributed under the GNU General Public License. But
I don't want to distribute rsxntdj under the library license.
Should I remove the commercial registration (there are only 10 users)?
The disadvantage is that commercial users will not use this package"

That should clear things up.

--
Johan Venter
ICQ 3643877
surf.to/djgppig

- Raw text -