On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2012 17:38, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of
On 30 March 2012 17:38, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Christ
christ.fab...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to
distribute a
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
permissive license), but
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package),
wherein the
information
for the complete, heterogenously-licensed package, including the
licenses for all dependencies, no matter how deeply nested.
With that definition for LICENSE in mind, and with the new admonition that we
must not choose between the licenses of multi-licensed dependencies, here
On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
to a list of other licenses per
