Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
binary distributions. [...]
I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With
the
Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
binary distributions. [...]
I wonder
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:39:26 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
I can re-release under the BOLA license with a WTFPL exemption:
‘To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain, but
if you do not agree this is possible, then just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.’
I've
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”?
Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is
indeed a copy.
What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing?
It is my
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a
“copy”?
Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is
indeed a copy.
There's little to
5 matches
Mail list logo
