On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:26:26AM -0700, Philip Edelbrock wrote: > Does anyone know what this is? Is this something we want to do or is it > not worth the bother? (Our included license already outlines the > distribution terms, so its odd to explicitly give permission.) On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 08:05:48PM -0400, Mark Studebaker wrote: > I agree they don't need our permission. > But they didn't say anything about it being linux-specific. And by 11/2004 > do they mean > November? Whatever they put in is likely to be quite out-of-date by > the time people get it. So I vote no. (not speaking for the c't, I am just a happy subscriber) I believe that while they have checked the License and know they can distribute it, they want to verify that the authors agree to such a publishing of their software. I could imagine that they will also have questions to the developers during their investigation on lm_sensors' capabilities. They may even perhaps want to verify whether there could be any unknown to them distribution obstructions (like using something needing a further license, for example a software MPEG2 decoder). 11/2004 will be the issue in the ~22nd week of 2004 (it's a beweekly numbering). E.g. this week was 8/2004, so it is in about 6 weeks. The freeze date of the CD will probably be about two or three weeks before publishing. I would suggest to explicitly allow c't to publish the software and article, it can only be of benefit to lm_sensors. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20040407/14ba64c9/attachment.bin
