On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 05:40:44PM +1000, James Cameron wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:27:35AM -0400, Dave Ahn wrote: > > James, perhaps it's time to revisit this licensing issue and either > > rerelease netrek under an existing OSS license or create our own. > > I agree, and I prefer rereleasing under an existing OSS license, but I > have no idea how this is done. Is it simply a matter of sticking the > GPL on it and thus violating the 'without fee' clause of the old > license? > > I suspect I am not qualified to make this judgement. I'll need some > opinions. Back when we had this discussion I received emails from several key netrek contributors that gave blanket permission regarding their code. Since quite a bit of the netrek code has been patched/modified/rewritten at this point by the current developers, I think it's safe to just put out a notice as to what we intend to do, wait a week or two for comments, then proceed. Perhaps this can be done for Vanilla 3.0. The only real question is which OSS license to use. I recall a lot of people having problems with the GPL. -- Dave Ahn | ahn at vec.wfubmc.edu | Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Try to live your life so that when you die, you will rejoice and the world will cry. -1/2 jj^2