[your linewrapping is weird]
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:56:32AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work
under
the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void.
...because it's not the GPL anymore. It's a something-else license.
If we
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:03:43PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
When I tried to get a Perl module with this license in Debian, I got the
following reason from James Troup for not accepting the above license
statement (and I quote):
Sorry to be pedantic but the only external files
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
problem? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is
acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAIK, and
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, James Troup wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
problem? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
of a lot of precedent indicating that using this
4 matches
Mail list logo
