On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer
Please see this site in Subject
On Dec 31, 2007 1:47 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know whether the problems with the CDDL that 1. it does not
follow the DFSG if there are active patents on the Covered Software;
2. Matthew Garrett's comment at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg4.html
Yes,
On Dec 31, 2007 2:00 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Sean, please follow the Debian mailing list guidelines
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Thanks. Francisco Poli pointed this out too, and I replied to him in
the last two paragraphs of this message:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:51:44 + Sean B. Palmer wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are
not so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by
an existing license.
Well
On Dec 31, 2007 11:36 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
C = Allows distribution without full license text
I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement
Fair enough. I've made a note of that in the following article:
http://inamidst.com/stuff/eiffel/
- Why the Eiffel Forum License?
Which I've
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't like it. Current text seems to forbid referring to
`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' for a package that is licensed under
GPL version N or later. At the very least, it should allow this.
I don't believe that the currnet Policy forbids that
[Sorry to let the thread drop for so long]
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free.
The
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[...]
Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
see how it's relevant.
It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
awkward way, thus making the work non-free.
Which terms of this
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[...]
Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
see how it's relevant.
It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
10 matches
Mail list logo
