Francesco Poli writes:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a
> > “copy”?
>
> Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is
> indeed a "copy".
There's little to connect the two
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”?
Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is
indeed a "copy".
What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing?
It is my under
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:39:26 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> I can re-release under the BOLA license with a WTFPL exemption:
>
> ‘To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain, but
> if you do not agree this is possible, then just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.’
I've
Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
> > licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
> > binary distributions. [...]
>
> I wonder if the li
Charles Plessy wrote:
> It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
> licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
> binary distributions. [...]
I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With
the increasing crimin
5 matches
Mail list logo
