Le Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:00:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
* Charles Plessy:
- The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore
does not have special requirements for binary distributions.
This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright statements
* Charles Plessy:
- The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore
does not have special requirements for binary distributions.
This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright statements to
display them, you may not remove them (see §5 (d) in the GPL
version
Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
If you are convinced that a public-domain-like situation is actually
desirable, then, AFAIK, the best way to achieve it is the Creative
Commons public domain dedication [1], or possibly CC0 [2].
[1]
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
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (02/07/2009):
[…] may I suggest the BOLA license, that is a politically correct
version of the WTFPL?
http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/
Quoting it:
| The BOLA text
| Here's the text. I usually place it in a file named LICENSE in the top
directory of the project.
Le Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 03:52:40PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
|
| There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you
| America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies
| with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether
| someone
Dear all,
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. In order to start clarifying the situation, I propose to
list for the most common licenses when they require to
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear all,
[...]
I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page:
http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license
under which the wiki page is
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:03:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license
under which the wiki page is released?
All my
11 matches
Mail list logo
