3 ms·
The license they moved to is right there in the blog post, with a relevant snippet from the text- >This software and related documentation are provided under a
by tedivm 13y ago
The license they moved to is right there in the blog post, with a relevant snippet from the text-
>This software and related documentation are provided under a license agreement containing restrictions on use and disclosure and are protected by intellectual property laws. Except as expressly permitted in your license agreement or allowed by law, you may not use, copy, reproduce, translate, broadcast, modify, license, transmit, distribute, exhibit, perform, publish, or display any part, in any form, or by any means. Reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompilation of this software, unless required by law for interoperability, is prohibited.
I'm not sure how much clearer they could be that it's not a free license.
- gcr 13y ago> ...are provided under a license agreement... How do you know that specific license isn't the GPL? That blurb restates common law. It does not interfere with the specific license that the documentation was covered under, it's just there to remind people.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rlpb 13y agoIndeed. But there's a further blurb below that which specifically states that the manpage is not under the GPL and that restricts redistribution and modification.