On Thu 15 Mar 2007 13:04:30 Julian Mehnle wrote:
Roberto Alsina wrote:
I would suggest you look into this and make sure you have things the
way you want. If I were to hazard a non-lawyer guess, if you use excc
you will have to license the package as a whole under GPL (which I
think you can do).
AFAIK, right now this is not really a problem. My own RaSPF code is
under Python license, and the whole is GPL. I will se what I can do to
make it stay under a more liberal license (even if it means replacing
I don't see a real problem with GPL, but for the sake of SPF proliferation,
BSD would probably be best.
The EXCC author will probably relicense it as LGPL on monday (needs to check
for contributions) so this should go away soon.
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) ralsina(_at_)kde(_dot_)org
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' KDE Developer (MFCH)
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Buenos Aires - Argentina
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it. --Brian W. Kernighan
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735