Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: bashprompt license (was Re: PATCH: prompt fun)

X-seq: zsh-workers 8164
From: Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Zsh workers <zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bashprompt license (was Re: PATCH: prompt fun)
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 16:25:27 +0100
Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <19991006215809.A12344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E11ZB1h-0005KR-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <19991007142931.D19339@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <991007141959.ZM26920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> That should be fine as is, then; make a note of that somewhere (maybe
> add a Functions/README.prompts file?).  If they ever do get under a GPL
> style license, all we have to do is stop copying them into the dist and
> make people grab & convert them with the perl program.

If we've been supplied with them now by the author (and copyright owner) without the GPL license then we can't be affected by any future change of license that the author chooses to distribute them under. The only thing we couldn't do is incorporate changes that have only been distributed to us under the GPL. I would however agree that it would be wise to include a README to clarify that what we have isn't GPL encumbered.

Oliver Kiddle

References:
- Re: PATCH: prompt fun
  - From: Adam Spiers
- Re: PATCH: prompt fun
  - From: Zefram
- bashprompt license (was Re: PATCH: prompt fun)
  - From: Adam Spiers
- Re: bashprompt license (was Re: PATCH: prompt fun)
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author