Re: LYNX-DEV OS/2 blowoff

[Jonathan Sergent]

 ] the readme says it is based on 2.4.1 .

(oops, missed that!)

It's not-so-nice for _anyone_, since 2.4.1 is for non-commercial use 
only ("commercial use will be licensed at a later date" is what the 
2.4.1 about_lynx.html says).

That has certainly nothing to do with source availability, but wouldn't 
one be breaking the (old) UKans license by using Lynx/2 at work (for a 
commercial institution)?

On the other hand, the UKans license has little to say about the 
issue of modifying the source and distributing it (or binaries derived 
thereof).  The switch to GPL was so that this would be possible (for
Fote, et al. to make the 2.4.2+ releases), was it not?

[ I don't mean to start another huge licensing discussion on lynx-dev
  such as that of a month or two (?) ago, but it's somewhat disturbing
  that Derek hasn't even acknowledged anyone's mail.  From the 1994
  lynx-dev post Wayne referred to, it seemed that he was willing to 
  work with the Lynx developers, and it would certainly be worth finding 
  out if that's changed in the last three (!) years, and if so, why. ]


-- 
Jonathan Sergent / address@hidden / address@hidden
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;