From: Steffen Seeger <seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:42:42 +0200 (MEST)

Re: What about the

> > I make the motion to accept this license suggestion, as stated above.
> > Who seconds it?
> 
> I second it. That's a rational solution for the licensing problem, and during
> the irc session some time ago, those points had been agreed by most
> people. I wasn't too hot about the dual BSD/GPL licensing at the time,
> but it does make sense and that's the only way out, so go for it.
> 
> Personally as long as my code benefits the GGI project and maybe makes
> someone's life better, I don't mind what license it is released under.

Same for me. I don't mind multiple licenses. If it helps to get
KGI spread, I accept almost any somewhat reasonable licence.

I am fine with everything that doesn't exclude vendors to release their
own binary stuff, restricts us to one particular OS, disallows
derival of binary drivers from our __example__ drivers.
I agree to put as much as needed under PD/GPL/whatever.

However, we should still ask Bruce Perens if it is OpenSource compliant.
 
			Steffen

----------------- e-mail: seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de -----------------