On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:07 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C
> licence"):
> > There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C
> > licence
> > v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history of this mailing
> > list.
> > It's not
[Sorry for sending unfinished letter.]
> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine.
IBM PL v1.0 contains a choice of law clause and it’s listed as suitable for
Debian’s main [0].
As for arbitration clause, could anyone explain, what’s the practical
> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine. (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or
> Chinese courts.)
Interesting idea. Any substationation for such a discrimination of origin?
Drew Parsons writes ("freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence"):
> There are various discussions about the status of the CeCILL-C licence
> v1 (and other CeCILL licences) in the history of this mailing list.
> It's not listed at https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
> but when it last
4 matches
Mail list logo
