Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"
m |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
With all the new information on zDoom project's change to GPL willingness, just low priority, we need to update this to give that information. Additionally, as a note, it seems the same may be true for GzDoom if we need any of their resources.-- [[User:KitsuKun|Kituskun]] 3:50, 7 Nov 2006 (CST) | With all the new information on zDoom project's change to GPL willingness, just low priority, we need to update this to give that information. Additionally, as a note, it seems the same may be true for GzDoom if we need any of their resources.-- [[User:KitsuKun|Kituskun]] 3:50, 7 Nov 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This isn't really required. We follow the GPL license placed upon Zdoom 1.22 that adheres to Randy's conditions that all non-GPL code is removed. GzDoom and current ZDoom versions are irrelevant to what is currently happening here. --[[User:Ralphis|Ralphis]] 07:27, 8 November 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 13:27, 8 November 2006
We might be pushing it by saying we strictly adhere. Perhaps a slightly softer word but still retaining the effectiveness? --Manc 18:24, 31 March 2006 (CST)
Would "oblige" be suitable? -Deathz0r 18:25, 31 March 2006 (CST)
I was thinking "diligently" or "dutifully" follows... --Manc 18:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)
I like "dutifully", "diligently" seems to be a bit too highbrow. -Deathz0r 18:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)
With all the new information on zDoom project's change to GPL willingness, just low priority, we need to update this to give that information. Additionally, as a note, it seems the same may be true for GzDoom if we need any of their resources.-- Kituskun 3:50, 7 Nov 2006 (CST)
This isn't really required. We follow the GPL license placed upon Zdoom 1.22 that adheres to Randy's conditions that all non-GPL code is removed. GzDoom and current ZDoom versions are irrelevant to what is currently happening here. --Ralphis 07:27, 8 November 2006 (CST)