Re: Review of license

I agree with Francesco Poli that the license, while not ideal, is acceptable. Using 3a (licencing the changes under the same license, or any compatible licence, and distributing them through the Debian mirror network definately satisfies that requirement. End users can choose 3b if they will

Re: Review of license

[I'm Cc:ing Roberto, who asked to be Cc:ed, but probably didn't see Joe's reply] On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:03:47 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: I agree with Francesco Poli that the license, while not ideal, is acceptable. Using 3a (licencing the changes under the same license, or any compatible

Re: Review of license

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [I'm Cc:ing Roberto, who asked to be Cc:ed, but probably didn't see Joe's reply] Thanks Francesco. This is the type of messed up license obtained when a lawyer never looks over the license, and the drafter is not familar