[PD] PiDiP's legal status

Kyle Klipowicz kyleklip at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 19:35:46 CET 2006


Isn't it possible that what Yves inserted into his license was really
just a joke?  Frank's comment about the point of contention being
listed before the GNU preamble supports this.

~Kyle

On 1/17/06, Chris McCormick <chris at mccormick.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:32:11AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, vincent rioux wrote:
> > > > > we probably should not go that far into details,
> > > > which details are superfluous?
> > > Those which had already been covered in previous posts.
> >
> > I posted about PiDiP on pd-list as I realized that most people didn't even
> > know of PiDiP's license problems because it only had been discussed on
> > pd-dev and pd-ot. It might all be superfluous to your inbox, but there are
> > many other people reading pd-list.
>
> You are quite correct, and if your post was purely to help out people who
> might get stuck in a quagmire of licensing issues, I offer my apologies.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chris.
>
> -------------------
> chris at mccormick.cx
> http://mccormick.cx
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>


--
http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com
(((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())())))
(())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((())))
))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________
_____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______
((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO




More information about the Pd-list mailing list