Re: Some Documents

["Adam D. Moss" <adam@uk.uu.net>]

Adrian Ratnapala wrote:
> The other document is a license which I think is appropriate
> for us.  It is a lot like the LGPL, except there is no
> obligation on people who distribute binaries to distribute
> the source.
> 
> Since it  is more relaxed than the LGPL, which is more relaxed
> than the GPL, there should be no trouble putting [L]GPLed code
> under this new license.  What do people think?

Looks great to me.

I couldn't verify the wording from a legal point of view,
of course.

--Adam


aDaM d M0s5 +=+ GIMP GaFfA & r0aDi3 =-= adam@gimp.org +=+ ^www.gimp.org^
^www.foxbox.org^ -*- AspirinTheFox ~= Linux/Foxes/Scribbles/Beer/Musings
"For years, free software has been seen as part of the counterculture; a
hacker thing.  But as is so often the case, the counterculture is really
the new mainstream in disguise." :-- Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly & Associates