Hi,
The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.
I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.
Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
it?
I wouldn't
[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Hi,
I've filed an ITP (WNPP #252999) on some software that is licensed under the
GPL.
The source does not contain anything like a COPYING or LICENSE file or
anything where the author asserts copyright over the work, or states that
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:02:08AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:40:20PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Please set the Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this.
Must learn how to do that in Mutt...
Ah, E
Hi,
[[ Please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed ]]
I'm looking at packaging up elfsign, see WNPP #247427.
This is licensed under the Artistic license, however uses OpenSSL's engine.h
to build. Does this present any issues?
regards
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly
questionable as to whether
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly
questionable as to whether
Hi,
I'm considering packaging up RIPE's whois server, and the closest thing I
can find to a licence in the source tarball is the contents of the COPYING
file, at the end of this message.
The only bit I'm unsure of is the last sentence. Does it mean we can't
refer to it as the RIPE whois
7 matches
Mail list logo
