I moved the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
(please CC me).
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05:25PM +, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45:25PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
Again, this is not the language that the AGPL uses. It requires that
your modified version
Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
Thank you
Laszlo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
I'm pretty sure that commercial applications in legal use means
something different to commercial software applications, so I'd say
that the act of distribution itself is sometimes a commercial
application.
I'm not
I believe repacking upstream tarball to exclude logos is the way to go.
You'll also want to remove the MSN/AIM/etc logos from Pidgin/Empathy/etc
too, since they obviously fall into the same legal grey area.
Unless they're considered fair use then everything should be good to go.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:48:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
According to David A. Wheeler, the US Department of Defense has
recognised FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) as being on the
same basis as Commercial
Hello:
The couple of guys maintaining KVIrc package this is, Kai and me, reckoned
recently of a GPL version mismatch between the licence intended to apply to
the whole project and the version which each source file is licensed under.
We overlooked this problem for some time until the
6 matches
Mail list logo
