From: Franz Schrober <franzschrober@gmail.com>
To: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Cc: jw+debian@jameswestby.net, sparse@chrisli.org,
franzschrober@gmail.com, Franz Schrober <franzschrober@yahoo.de>
Subject: [PATCHv2 4/5] FAQ: Remove outdated section about the license
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:16:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1385633782-775-5-git-send-email-franzschrober@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1385633782-775-1-git-send-email-franzschrober@gmail.com>
From: Franz Schrober <franzschrober@yahoo.de>
Signed-off-by: Franz Schrober <franzschrober@yahoo.de>
---
FAQ | 17 -----------------
1 file changed, 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/FAQ b/FAQ
index 290de0e..56a2618 100644
--- a/FAQ
+++ b/FAQ
@@ -50,23 +50,6 @@ A. See the previous question: I personally think that the front end
improvements back. That's your "quid" to my "quo".
-Q. So what _is_ the license?
-
-A. I don't know yet. I originally thought it would be LGPL, but I'm
- possibly going for a license that is _not_ subsumable by the GPL.
- In other words, I don't want to see a GPL'd project suck in the
- LGPL'd front-end, and then make changes to the front end under the
- GPL (this is something that the LGPL expressly allows, and see the
- previous question for why I think it's the _only_ thing that I will
- not allow).
-
- The current front-runner is the OSL ("Open Software License", see
- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php), together with a note on
- what makes source derivative and what does not to make it clear that
- people can write back-ends for it without having to make those
- back-ends available under the OSL.
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-28 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-28 10:16 [PATCHv2 0/5] sparse: Relicense from non-dfsg-free OSL 1.1 to MIT license Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:16 ` [PATCHv2 1/5] Revert "Update the information in README about using the library." Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:16 ` [PATCHv2 2/5] Revert "Fix mistaken comparison that becomes a no-op." Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:16 ` [PATCHv2 3/5] sparse: Relicense under the MIT license Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:16 ` Franz Schrober [this message]
2013-11-28 21:05 ` [PATCHv2 4/5] FAQ: Remove outdated section about the license Josh Triplett
2013-11-29 12:19 ` Schrober
2013-11-29 12:30 ` [PATCHv3 4/5] FAQ: Remove outdated sections " Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:16 ` [PATCHv2 5/5] sparse: Also check bit_offset when checking implicit casts Franz Schrober
2013-11-28 10:22 ` [PATCHv2 0/5] sparse: Relicense from non-dfsg-free OSL 1.1 to MIT license Franz Schrober
[not found] ` <CANeU7Qkjvh4OeCWANFbV6COU4NvjB1pUGXwry7CNCrQz8WG0zw@mail.gmail.com>
2013-11-29 23:18 ` Fwd: " Christopher Li
2013-11-30 12:48 ` Franz Schrober
2013-12-03 8:17 ` Franz Schrober
2013-12-03 10:37 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-12-03 11:02 ` Schrober
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1385633782-775-5-git-send-email-franzschrober@gmail.com \
--to=franzschrober@gmail.com \
--cc=franzschrober@yahoo.de \
--cc=jw+debian@jameswestby.net \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparse@chrisli.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).