Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
allow this option.
I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream list
Hi,
[I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC]
Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
allow this option.
I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
The two sentences can not be dissociated:
Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi Debian legal,
Hello Paul,
thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously.
I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this
[...]
First:
[...]
My own
10 matches
Mail list logo