Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to get some clarifications on how to interpret GPL's
derivations-must-also-be-licensed-under-GPL feature and similar demands in
other licenses. Namely: [...]
Please try http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first.
My understanding is that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi,
I'm currently involved in a discussion on kde-core-devel regarding the
use of a QPLed plugin that is dlopened within a GPLed application. For
details:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kdevelop-develm=02280128853w=2
I received the
Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
been:
* Additional phrasing changes due to MJ Ray
* Additional phrasing changes due to Francesco Poli
* Clear textual recommendations for
Quoted with permission:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:17:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:50:47 -0600, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:15:41PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with
So, this page:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
...lists some license summaries and makes some statements about whether
the licenses are free or not.
It's not clear to me how these summaries become official, or at least
posted on that page. Any suggestions? I'll like to get the CC
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, this page:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
...lists some license summaries and makes some statements about whether
the licenses are free or not.
It's not clear to me how these summaries become official, or
First and formost, this discussion doesn't belong on -legal at all, as
-legal isn't the body responsible for interpreting the constitution.
That's the Secretary's job under 7.1.3. Forwarding to -vote as that
(or possibly -project) is the correct list.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Taral wrote:
Quoted
7 matches
Mail list logo
