Dear,
First, thanks for your time spent around these questions.
Please see comments below.
Le 20 mars 06 à 03:39, MJ Ray a écrit :
Olivier Mascia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my
opinion.
There is no such files with
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a
violation of the GFDL if
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: We cannot accept GPLv2 only.
That's dumb. Of course they *can*. They just don't want to.
So, Savannah rejects free software now, just because some developers
don't want to let people weld adverts into their manuals? Shame.
[...]
Other similar
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm puzzled: how can you say that Bob had no part in the *derived*
work?
He took no part in creating the new work from it.
Does Linus Torvalds have no part in linux-image-2.6-*.deb? Debian Linux
kernels are different from official kernel.org ones, but that
Well, you could have won EURO 50.
Wanna bet whether Wallace will appeal and/or file Rule 60 Motion first?
I bet EURO 50 that he will. Who's playing?
regards,
alexander.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:08:50PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It seems DFSG-free to me but who knows?
I don't like licenses, because I don't like having to worry about all this
legal stuff just for a simple piece of software I don't really mind anyone
using. But I also believe that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
follow.
Thank you very much. This is an impressive piece of work.
I'll take some time to read it cautiously and come back if
any question.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
On 3/22/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions)
From the BOLA license:
To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain.
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Some would complain that this doesn't give explicit permission to
modify and/or distribute, and the typical suggestion is to use either
the MIT license (liberal) or GPLv2
9 matches
Mail list logo
