David Ascher wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> In a later mail I suggested adding these licenses to the standard >> Python license file. This should probably be done as new section >> explaining to which code the license applies and where the code >> was obtained from. >> >> Then binary distributions would only have to include this one >> file (which they have to include anyway, since the Python license >> requires this). > > > This would suit us (ActiveState) just fine. In general, we don't mind > doing whatever is necessary to give credit where credit is due (as well > as comply with the license in general, of course) -- but the simpler it > is, the more likely it is to actually be carried through -- the more > automatable the better as well. So what's the general feeling ? Should we take this approach ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4