2014-08-19 18:44 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org:
if your packaging work contains copyrightable parts (note that some typical
files in debian directories are definitely trivial and therefore
non-copyrightable), then their license need to be compatible with the upstream
sources if
Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the
debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
license GPL-3+ or not?
No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you
use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.)
I didn't
Draft question for SFLC:
(there are no changes since v3 apart from fixes to the numbering of
some section cross-references)
Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP
licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant
upstreams. We would like some
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (2014-08-21):
Draft question for SFLC:
(there are no changes since v3 apart from fixes to the numbering of
some section cross-references)
Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP
licence. These worries are dismissed
Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: PHP licence SFLC questions draft v4):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (2014-08-21):
We are concerned here with the PHP 3.01 Licences, which can be
found here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt
I might have missed them, but I don't think there were any
Hi,
First, thanks a lot to Ian for working on this draft, which (I think)
provides a nice summary of the situation around the PHP license.
On 21/08/14 at 19:49 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (2014-08-21):
Draft question for SFLC:
(there are no
Le Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the
debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
license GPL-3+ or not?
No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if
7 matches
Mail list logo
