From: "Johan Venter" <jventer AT writeme DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <Tnvx3.6784$ei1 DOT 13774 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 19990830230922 DOT 0090d100 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br>
Subject: Re: Can we vote on letting RSXNTDJ rest in peace?
Lines: 27
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <fdNy3.8910$ei1.18011@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:58:40 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.163.73
X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 936091595 139.134.163.73 (Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:26:35 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:26:35 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Cesar S. Rabak <csrabak AT ipt DOT br> wrote in message
news:3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 19990830230922 DOT 0090d100 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br...
> Agreed and seconded. Now _my_ (another :-) ) real question: does the way
> Rainier put his license allow this? If yes, as I mentioned earlier, we
> could end up with a similar rebirth as happened with GRX (BTW a good
point,
> because is a success story), if not, IMHO we are stuck again with the need
> to get an answer from the author!

I recently got a reply from Rainer, here is a part of that message
reproduced:

"fixing rsxntdj: Why not? (I don't have time for it)
rsxntdj 1.50 is distributed under the GNU General Public License. But
I don't want to distribute rsxntdj under the library license.
Should I remove the commercial registration (there are only 10 users)?
The disadvantage is that commercial users will not use this package"

That should clear things up.

--
Johan Venter
ICQ 3643877
surf.to/djgppig