Ask the new DPL (aj) I guess.
andrew
On 4/10/06, Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dann wrote:
Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest
approach.
Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db
packaging, release, or legal teams. I
Bad solution: in this way the license is compatible only with itself. However, artworks are different from functional works: the concept of derivative work is not the same (it is not necessary to specify "in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof", because a
hi all,
i've got an ITP pending about kscope, and it seems that there's a problem on
licences incompatibility:
* from upstream website :
Some people have suggested that, despite the move to a two-clause BSD
license, KScope still violates the conditions of either the GPL (Qt) or the
CPL
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i've got an ITP pending about kscope, and it seems that there's a problem on
licences incompatibility:
* from upstream website : [...]
KScope (BSD License) dynamically links with KDE (LGPL?), Qt (GPL) and
graphviz (CPL). [...]
The solution seems to be --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dears,
(should you reply, please keep me cc'ed)
According to avidemux's author, it cannot be part of Debian due to
license/patent restriction on mpeg2/mpeg4 encoding/decoding parts.
However, this sounds strange to me: Should it be the case, what
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 4/10/06, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The GPL uses this language because it is intended to apply not only to
derivative works, but also to works that aren't derivative but do
contain the work.
Yeah, right.
The intent is that if you somehow
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html
Wow. I had
7 matches
Mail list logo
