Hello Debian Legal,
I stumbled upon a package, lft, and noticed that the distributed
packaged was somewhat of age. I looked it up and found quite updated
source at the program developers webpage [1]. So I pondered over why
this is not included; maybe the package maintainer is just asleep. Then
I
Package: bitstormlite
Version: 0.2k-1
Severity: serious
Justification: license incompatibility
The bitstormlite package currently in archive, 0.2k-1, links to
libcurl4-openssl, and therefore indirectly links to libssl. Since
bitstormlite is licensed under GPL with no exceptions, I believe there
i
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game
[...]
> All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0.
Good.
> All the game content,
> sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0
> Attribution license ( http:/
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:13:25 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections
> >from > -legal
> >
> >I don't think that this
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is
> DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories?
The ftpmasters do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
"Jason Spiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/15/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
How about:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d.
added saying:
You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
Hi,
I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game called "Which Way Is
Up?" ( http://hectigo.net/puskutraktori/whichwayisup/ ) and maintain it.
All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. All the game content,
sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution
lic
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from
-legal
I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion.
See http://lists.debian.or
8 matches
Mail list logo