Greetings gracious cl.net admins,
I'd like to create an rjain-utils project where I can put my libraries, such as specified-types, tables, protocols, CLIM generic-commands, etc.
Also, I'm thinking of creating a subclass of defdoc's contrib "project-website" specialized for creating a cl.net-specific style of page. Do you have any standards you'd like to be followed as far as colors, CSS, layout, etc?
Thanks!
On Mar 6, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Rahul Jain wrote:
I'd like to create an rjain-utils project where I can put my libraries, such as specified-types, tables, protocols, CLIM generic-commands, etc.
Greetings!
What license will this software be covered by?
Also, I'm thinking of creating a subclass of defdoc's contrib "project-website" specialized for creating a cl.net-specific style of page. Do you have any standards you'd like to be followed as far as colors, CSS, layout, etc?
Not that I'm aware of.
Erik.
Erik Enge erik@nittin.net writes:
On Mar 6, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Rahul Jain wrote:
I'd like to create an rjain-utils project where I can put my libraries, such as specified-types, tables, protocols, CLIM generic-commands, etc.
Greetings!
What license will this software be covered by?
Mostly MIT license. Some of it may have different licenses on a case-by-case basis, but that will be rare.
Also, I'm thinking of creating a subclass of defdoc's contrib "project-website" specialized for creating a cl.net-specific style of page. Do you have any standards you'd like to be followed as far as colors, CSS, layout, etc?
Not that I'm aware of.
OK. If you decide on any, let me know. :)
Erik Enge erik@nittin.net writes:
On Mar 7, 2004, at 4:30 AM, Rahul Jain wrote:
Mostly MIT license. Some of it may have different licenses on a case-by-case basis, but that will be rare.
As long as it is not more restrictive than the GPL (though LLGPL is preferred) I guess it would be ok.
Yes, of course. :)
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Erik Enge wrote:
Mostly MIT license. Some of it may have different licenses on a case-by-case basis, but that will be rare.
As long as it is not more restrictive than the GPL (though LLGPL is preferred) I guess it would be ok.
Same here. As long as they're DSFG-free.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
Nikodemus Siivola tsiivola@cc.hut.fi writes:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Erik Enge wrote:
Mostly MIT license. Some of it may have different licenses on a case-by-case basis, but that will be rare.
As long as it is not more restrictive than the GPL (though LLGPL is preferred) I guess it would be ok.
Same here. As long as they're DSFG-free.
Idem, I approve.
Regards, Mario.
-
Erik Enge -
Mario Mommer -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Rahul Jain -
Rahul Jain