On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 10:49:05AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
>On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use
>> this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not intended
>> for XXX". There's quite
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use
> this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not intended
> for XXX". There's quite a difference there IMHO.
To me it sounds like a more explicit “No
Mihai wrote:
>
>* On 8/5/22 01:09, Ben Westover wrote:
>> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
>> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
>> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
>
>I can see how the
* On 8/5/22 01:09, Ben Westover wrote:
> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
I can see how the outcome of, e.g.,
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 08:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I wouldn't put any weight on the presence of the APSL 2.0 license
> text
> in the archive, probably it got into Debian in those packages due to
> lack of copyright/license review rather than deliberate acceptance,
> especially since it is in
> Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important
> packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine.
What code is exactly under that license? As far as I know, WebKit
itself (which Chromium is a fork of) is licensed under LGPL (KDE code)
and 2-clause BSD (Apple code).
In your example of
6 matches
Mail list logo
