Re: [Openclips-development] Documentation License

[Tim C. <tw...@sh...>]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 16:32, Thomas Sutton wrote:

> The FDL?
> 
> Isn't there supposed to be a lot of controversy over the FDL and just
> how non-free it is? Are the debian people still frothing at the mouth
> over it? If they are, they probably won't ship OpenCLIPS (or they'll
> just re-write our documentation if they do).

Where Debian people are concerned there is always controversy. <g>
(btw: Debian is all I run on production servers)

If they publish a Debian Documentation License I/we will read it and
consider it.  Otherwise, is there another viable choice?

> On the BWCLIPS front: it builds against TCL/TK though I'm not sure
> which is in control, so to speak. Actually, strike that, CLIPS is
> using Tcl_Eval to do stuff to widgets, so I'm guessing the user
> interface is in TCL/TK and the CLIPS engine is in control (much/most
> of the time).
> 
> It is also missing a file clsltpsr.c and mentions modifying line 263
> in the 'fish translation of the README.
> 
> I couldn't find any file header comments, never mind anything that
> looked like a copyright statement in any of the files I looked at.

Given this then, is it possible to compare it to the current OpenCLIPS
CVS and get anything useful?  

Would we be better off just ignoring it?

Regards,
Tim