RE: [pooma-dev] Re: Pooma License: Up to Date?

[James Crotinger]

My only comment would be that if we're going to keep www.pooma.com, which I think we should, then we should list it as the website. It is a redirection now, but that could change in the future.

  Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Oldham [mailto:address@hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:03 AM
> To: James Crotinger
> Cc: 'Mark Mitchell'; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] Re: Pooma License: Up to Date?
>
>
> Is the attached proposed change to the README file acceptable?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeffrey D. Oldham
> address@hidden
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:23:45PM -0700, James Crotinger wrote:
> > Perhaps you should change it in the READMEs and leave a
> note there about the
> > licenses being out of date.
> >
> >   Jim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Mitchell [mailto:address@hidden]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:02 AM
> > > To: Jeffrey Oldham
> > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > Subject: [pooma-dev] Re: Pooma License: Up to Date?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --On Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:30 AM -0800 Jeffrey Oldham
> > > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you know if the Pooma license, in the file "LICENSE,"
> > > contains the
> > > > correct license?
> > >
> > > I believe it to be correct.
> > >
> > > > At the very least, the contact URLs should be changed.
> > >
> > > The problem is that *we* can't do that, at least that's what Beth
> > > thought the last time I asked her.  LANL would have to do
> that, and
> > > that's a can of worms I'm not particularly interested in opening.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark Mitchell
> > > CodeSourcery, LLC
> > > address@hidden
> > >
>
> --
> Jeffrey D. Oldham
> address@hidden
>