pe, 2008-05-30 kello 13:35 +0300, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti:
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
Expat, X11 or the modified BSD
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a
couple of weeks or so.
I agree that we should
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:07:07 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 14:42:46 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I personally think that *none* of them[1] meet the DFSG.
Yes, you've said that multiple times now.
Unfortunately, FTP-masters seem to disagree with me...
Anyone who would like to read further details on my view on the topic
could
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature. Expat is
usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to
MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different licences
over time) and for an explicit inclusion of
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
License
---
The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free.
I've just pushed that to http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep0/trunk/ (I didn't
think that needs any discussion; if I was wrong, it's easy enough to
revert).
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license.
I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
Expat, X11 or the modified
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's
consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a
couple of weeks or so.
I would prefer to
(Dropping Cc on -project, adding To to -legal. If you reply, please
maintain the Cc list)
Hi debian-legal,
On 29/05/08 at 13:54 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:51:33PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I'm not sure what would be the best practical license for DEPs, so
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The basic requirements are: (AFAIK)
- not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document
- suitable for documents
- require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above)
There's really no need to require changing the title, since
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MIT/X11 with minor changes:
When recommending, it's best to refer to this as the terms of the
Expat license (of which there has only ever been one version), not
MIT/X11 license which is a more ambiguous name (several licenses
meet that description, not
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:12:05 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MIT/X11 with minor changes:
When recommending, it's best to refer to this as the terms of the
Expat license (of which there has only ever been one version), not
MIT/X11 license which is a more
13 matches
Mail list logo
