Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at
Sun Dec 23 04:37:26 PST 2001

On 2001.12.22 17:44 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:32:28AM -0000, Jay Bennie wrote:
> > Here are my initial opinions
> > The XML DTD -- these would be best served by the GPL - this way
> different
> > builders/parsers are encouraged to use the same syntax, hence
> preserving
> > portability and achieving the main goal of all the hard work - creating
> a
> > common, well defined source package and build sequence description.
> A future "ALFS Package" would consist of a complete building system,
> meaning a parser, dtd, possible gui front-ends, backends, and so on. For
> the purpose of the alfs source itself it should all be under one license.
> If I were an ALFS user I wouldn't want to first have to find out if the
> different components of a package are licensed differently, having to
> check
> out all those licenses and so on to make sure I can use it, modify the
> code, what I have to do with the modified code and all that other stuff.
> Having one license would greatly simplify this for others.

I have to agree that too many licenses gets too confusing, and i hate to 
drag out this whole thread even more, but this brings up the point that we 
probably should sort out the syntax/DTD aswell :( BSD anyone ?

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list