From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' & Message-ID: <20030801073548.U1666@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20030801063322.Q1666@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <7f3fc5f9e6cc8828e4e0f61de4416c45@mightycheese.com> <20030801070838.T1666@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20030801070838.T1666@cackle.proxima.alt.za>; from Lucio De Re on Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:08:45AM +0200 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:35:48 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e4a974a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:08:45AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: > > That was (a) meant to be private mail and (b) a recompilation of the > published source. I really didn't think I was breaking a licence, but > if I am, I retract the above altogether. Nemo has a 2ed licence, if I > remember correctly, though, which is why I offered it to him (and > slipped on the send button). > This is what I have on my web site : As 2nd Edition Plan 9 comes with a very restrictive licence, I took the liberty of producing 3rd Edition version of the /386/bin/aux/pm binary for those who may not have such a licence. Please contact me as Lucio De Re or on the 9fans mailing list for a copy. Should I be adding a restriction that the recipient ought to have a 2ed licence first? Or should I remove this altogether? ++L