On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:28:54 -0800
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Karsten Wade kw...@redhat.com
wrote:
But there is an additional clause in contributing content to
Wikipedia, that it be contributed under the GFDL:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:29:57 -0800
Julius Davies juliusdav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Maybe the overall master copyright license for the Fedora
compilation causes every single GPL+ compatible file inside Fedora to
be licensed as GPL+ ? So every LGPL, BSD, MIT file which *can* be
relicensed
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:31:28 -0500
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:
I won't speculate as to whether it was the intent of the authors of
the Microsoft Public License to consider mere aggregation to be
excluded from the scope of their reciprocal terms and
conditions[14], but
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:11:08 -0500
Bryan Kearney bkear...@redhat.com wrote:
Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is:
http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE
No, BSD.
- RF
___
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:52:04 -0400
Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm currently discussing with the developers for Fan
(http://fandev.org/), a JVM/CLR language, the possibility of them
relicensing or dual-licensing from the Academic Free License.
Current
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU
All-Permissive License[3].
We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the
[removed publican-list from cc]
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
[re: WTFPL]
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know
license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent
and serves the necessary
On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400
Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to chime
in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very much like for
us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA.
Such a decision should be made
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:41:06 -0500
Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com wrote:
http://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/ states that all the plugins hosted
on WordPress's website (the SVN repo is svn.wp-plugins.org, and
wp-plugins.org redirects to the website listed first here) are
licensed under the GPL
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:28:16 +0530
Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
scottsiu wrote:
Dear sir:
We are Guangtian technology Ltd. Co., a System Integrator in China,
and we have a issue on selling Fedora. We want to ask for your
advice. A local notebook PC producer,
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:10:53 -0700
Ray Van Dolson ra...@bludgeon.org wrote:
Hi all;
This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet[1] for Fedora. It
turns out that part of this package[2] is under a non-free license.
Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:52:43 +
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
APSL 1.0 is listed in Bad Licenses. Is this because it is non-free,
or because it was deprecated and replaced (latest version of the
license is APSL 2.0) ?
I had a look at the license text[1] and it seems like
(IAARHL, IANASL[1], TINLA)
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:56:59 +1000
Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes
compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients.
Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:45:15 -0400
Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a result of:
If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice
14 matches
Mail list logo
