Ian Jackson writes:
> There are existing packages for which I consider the PFM to include
> the git history. I'm not pressing this point from a legal point of
> view because, well, that just generates lots of heat and no light.
> I think that we should address this potential problem by
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL"):
> Are you asking this hypothetically, or is there a piece of software that
> someone intends to apply this to?
There are existing packages for which I consider the PFM to include
the git history. I'm not pressing this po
El 24/7/19 a les 22:28, Florian Weimer ha escrit:
> * Adam Borowski:
>
>> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
>> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>>
>> ##
>> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28:19PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On the other hand, not allowing source distribution as a “flat
> tarball” sounds like an additional restriction, which would be
> incompatible with the GPL. (Just like parts of glibc used to require
> distribution on tapes, only
* Adam Borowski:
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any non-source
On 7/23/19 6:49 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus,
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 02:34:13 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > ##
> > > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> > > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> > > the actual form for modification. There are
Adam Borowski writes:
> Hi!
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:49:24AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> the actual form for modification. There are many such
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:14:38AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:49:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > ##
> > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to
On 2019/07/23 19:49, Adam Borowski wrote:
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> the actual form for modification. There are many such ways -- unless you
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
