Re: [ba-ohs-talk] ohs cvs? [Licensing]
--- Jack Park <email@example.com> wrote: (01)
> Second, as a member of a small group of people who worked on the
> issues, including the Stanford issue, I though that problem was
> officially, once and for all. Maybe not. The license chosen is
> Apache. (02)
that is fine for me. (03)
> further actions, to my recollection, have occured that would change
> commitment. (04)
> About Stanford, perhaps more needs to be stated by Mei
> Fung, or others, but I (perhaps wrongly) recall that ba-ohs-talk is a (05)
> separate issue from unrevII (which now seems to be a trap for nasty
> and should be closed down) and thus not subject to the "heavy hand"
> Stanford agreements. (06)
The creative commons has come up with a interesting set of licenses
that you might want to look into for the ml. (07)
As far as I know, all the posts on the ml are copyrighted by thier
respective authors. (08)
James Michael DuPont
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.