On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has
exactly one licence.
Totally agree.
[snip]
So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F
cannot change the licence, because the only
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:10:14 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[...]
They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just*
distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can
distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not*
say you can yell
On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
[...]
The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to
explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just
talks about using, which is a vague term)
Are you sure? Clause 3 says:
3) If you modify
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: GPL + question):
They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the
terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but
the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the minimum
license needed to comply with all parts.
Hi,
[I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC]
Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
allow this option.
I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
Hi Francesco,
On 29-05-15 23:07, Francesco Poli wrote:
Second:
Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any
software, including commercial software, provided you accept the
following conditions:
1) The software may not be included into component collections and
similar
6 matches
Mail list logo
