On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:09:40 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:47:40PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > There's a misconception here.
> > The source code for a work is defined (in GPLv2, section 3) as
> > "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
> >
>
On Fri, 26 May 2006 07:43:58 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:43:11 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I don't agree.
> > The GPL is *not* a bad license for images: forcing source
> > distribution is a feature, not a bug.
>
> I was unclear: It's a bad license for images because
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:47:40PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> There's a misconception here.
> The source code for a work is defined (in GPLv2, section 3) as
> "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
>
> If the author discards a form of his/her work, this form is appare
On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:43:11 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I don't agree.
> The GPL is *not* a bad license for images: forcing source distribution
> is a feature, not a bug.
I was unclear: It's a bad license for images because it seems to be
extremely rare, for some reason, for people to keep t
On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:20:51 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote:
> I know I sound like a pain in the ass, but the new copyright file
> still doesn't list detailed copyright and upstream information.
I agree that this should be fixed.
> Also,
> the GPL is a bad license to apply to images, because it requ
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:34:17PM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is
> unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> message then please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruno Barrera C.) by replying
> to this e
6 matches
Mail list logo
