| Re: [AD] giftware license |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] giftware license
- From: Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:03:54 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=ewjq9Up3MQlMdem4tKyVXZravYaL2+h/6dzl6wPmtEy7J+bOMs7XMVAAZigVooZIYEtckizEKVva/HdWbHX6b76WxZOu0Qhj4Bd07Oy4FK/oAczsPZczH+C8pgT+Q24XGjiaat4kmv2rb6tyvDGl0TzJIYoaaQdVHUAdoIjcSI0
> Whats wrong with the current license? Are people
> running off and making their own versions of allegro
> or something? Unless there are some spinoffs that I'm
> not aware of, I dont think there are any incidents
> where people have taken advantage of the license.
>
Please read the original post(s) of this conversation for background
information.
There's nothing "wrong" with it, but other recognized licenses (such
as MIT) say the same thing with more legal authority. I think Allegro
ought to take on a recognizable license officially, and then keep the
"giftware" wording of sorts as a friendly explanation.
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.allegro.cc