On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:41:53AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
+a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either
+version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
object such a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
What do you think?
I am happy for all my contributions I have done for the Debian website
(which admittedly have not been a lot
Hi,
First of all, thanks Stefano to step in this long standing issue.
Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
If this is what you mean, then it should be noted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
[...]
Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that
Le 21/01/2012 12:28, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license:
[…]
Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I would not talk
about any latest version,
Thank you Francesco for your
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, I think you should clarify what you mean by dual-licensing.
Dual-licensing is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
being offered and the
Hi!
Am 17.01.2012 23:11, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
object such a choice?
On Mi, 18 ian 12, 13:09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two
licenses and as a consequence the whole
* Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org [2012-01-17 23:11:48 CET]:
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
Shouldn't that be GPL-2+ (or later option)? With MIT it isn't
explicitly needed, but still ... Ah, later in the text you wrote that
you
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:09:21 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two
licenses and as a consequence the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, I think you should clarify what you mean by dual-licensing.
Dual-licensing is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one,
according to his/her own
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
Hi everybody,
as you might have noticed the webmasters have recently restarted [1]
the discussion on how to fix this and its colleague bug report,
#388141.
[1]
On Ma, 17 ian 12, 23:11:48, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
...
What do you think?
Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
