Thomas,
I discussed this matter with our CEO and he asked me to resolve the
compliancy. I iwll update you shortly.
~ Adam
Hi Adam,
Ok, that sounds good, as I would really hate to push for a
package that has some controversy on the freeness of it's license.
I am very happy to see that you
Le Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:20:51AM -, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Thomas,
It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
Thomas Goirand tho...@gplhost.com wrote:
It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then
Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
Thomas Goirand tho...@gplhost.com wrote:
It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
If there is commentary that can be read
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:55 +0800
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not
how that licence is or is not described on a website.
But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of
its content:
Thomas,
It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a
good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr
* Package name: libjs-extjs
Version : 3.0.0
Upstream Author : Ext JS LLC licens...@extjs.com
* URL : http://www.extjs.com/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Javascript, PHP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
Hell, I missed it.
Oh well :-)
This doesn't appear at all on the license.txt. Do you
think I could still package it for the non-free archive?
I don't
Marcus Better wrote:
This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
Here they make claims that
brian m. carlson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been
discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I
just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion
about if one
On Oct 07, Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word must.
Which would not make it non-free either, as it is not part of the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
12 matches
Mail list logo