Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch package guidelines"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WillySilly (talk | contribs) |
WillySilly (talk | contribs) (Add note) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Shouldn't the License section be updated to reflect that the licensing system is in place and ready for users? --[[User:WillySilly|WillySilly]] 14:52, 12 Apr 2006 (PST) | Shouldn't the License section be updated to reflect that the licensing system is in place and ready for users? --[[User:WillySilly|WillySilly]] 14:52, 12 Apr 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | * Also, should the MIT license fall under the BSD exception? --[[User:WillySilly|WillySilly]] | ||
Revision as of 02:12, 19 April 2006
I hope you didn't change my addition because you thought I was bullshitting the name of the document and section number I got that from, because it was quoted straight from a developer's documentation of that name, and from that section. Righto, carry on, just curious... --Neotuli 09:40, 15 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Shouldn't the License section be updated to reflect that the licensing system is in place and ready for users? --WillySilly 14:52, 12 Apr 2006 (PST)
- Also, should the MIT license fall under the BSD exception? --WillySilly