[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the
Fortunately, most people disagree.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:45:29AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If it was
meant to include compiler-like tools, it would say the compiler used to
build the executable, but it clearly avoids that.
If this was true then the next sentence would not say this:
However, as a
special
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the
Fortunately, most people disagree.
The lurkers support me in email
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the
Fortunately, most people disagree.
The lurkers support me in email
While I won't actually try to use
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:08:03PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the
Fortunately, most people disagree.
Anthony Towns wrote:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
DFSG, which states:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Also,
(4) How can this be fixed?
This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the
8 matches
Mail list logo