X-Authentication-Warning: kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:42:54 -0500
From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Licences in 2.04 DSMs [PATCH]
Message-ID: <20021018154254.GA3118@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <200210181235 DOT g9ICZNl16916 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200210181239 DOT OAA22047 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200210181239.OAA22047@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

I think Martin makes a good point here; let's describe the
licensing _exactly_ (otherwise anyone concerned will have
to ask the same question he did).

-: > > Why the "Mostly" word. Wouldn't the statement be correct without
-: > > mostly? Mostly is so indefinite.
-: > 
-: > Parts are BSD, remember?
-: 
-: Then I suggest "Parts GPL/LGPL with some addional <something>, parts
-: BSD license."
-: 
-: Or keep mostly and add "Some files BSD license."