Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I'm not sure if it's the MPL or Mozilla that didn't allow the
> distribution of their images, or the patching of programs without
> their knowledge but I think that is not DFSG-free.
Last time I looked, the Mozilla images were in an other-licenses
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 03:56:40PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:48:05AM -0400, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 01:33:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 05 avril 2007 à 1
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:48:05AM -0400, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 01:33:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 05 avril 2007 à 19:33 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Basically, it says the binaries are not distributable, and that the
> > > so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 01:33:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 05 avril 2007 à 19:33 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Basically, it says the binaries are not distributable, and that the
> > source is under MPL only. MPL is not DFSG free.
Le jeudi 05 avril 2007 à 19:33 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> Basically, it says the binaries are not distributable, and that the
> source is under MPL only. MPL is not DFSG free.
I don't think the MPL is not DFSG-free. It is just that we are not able
to comply with it.
--
.''`.
: :' : We
"Dusty Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if this makes any difference, but here's a quote and
> link for you.
>
> >From http://getswiftfox.com/source.htm
> "[...] Yes, that makes Swiftfox "non-free" in the Debian sense but it
> will always be free of charge to all users. If anyone
te:
> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> > > Hi Debian legal I am writing you to ask a question that someone
> > > I know doesnt believe. It has to do with the Swiftfox license.
> > > Can you please confirm or deny that it passes the DFSG? Than
n legal I am writing you to ask a question that someone
> > > I know doesnt believe. It has to do with the Swiftfox license.
> > > Can you please confirm or deny that it passes the DFSG? Thanks.
> > > I say it doesnt, but he requires proof. Thanks.
> > >
>
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
> This tells that *swiftfox*binaries* are not distributable, not the
> binaries we would obtain building from sources.
Until you get to section 3:
3. Source code only is licensed MPL as required by
mozilla.org http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt
Bina
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:57:25PM -0400, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> > Hi Debian legal
> > I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
> > has to do with the Swift
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> Hi Debian legal
> I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
> has to do with the Swiftfox license. Can you please confirm or deny that it
> pas
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Kilz _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Debian legal
> I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
> has to do with the Swiftfox license. Can you please confirm or deny that it
> passes the DFSG? Thanks. I
Hi Debian legal
I am writing you to ask a question that someone I know doesnt believe. It
has to do with the Swiftfox license. Can you please confirm or deny that it
passes the DFSG? Thanks. I say it doesnt, but he requires proof. Thanks.
Here is the license.
SWIFTFOX LICENSE AND
13 matches
Mail list logo
