Hi Charles,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:18:21AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Does anybody think it is wrong to summarize in debian/copyright that SWIG
is GPLv3 with parts being under MIT or BSD license instead of putting in
a full copy? It is my understanding that GPLv3 is the most
Hi *,
I am still working on getting a SWIG 2.0 package out of the door. The least
interesting part (for me) is the licensing change.
SWIG changed from a mix of BSD/MIT licenses to GPLv3 with version 2.0.
I wonder about the wording of debian/copyright. I don't really want to
reproduce the full
Le Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:26:43PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff a écrit :
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-swig/branches/swig2.0/LICENSE-UNIVERSITIES
Instead I would rather refer to common-licenses, but the texts of the license
in there do not match word-by-word with BSD/MIT.
Does anybody
3 matches
Mail list logo
