Michelle Konzack wrote:
I was thinking to use the term:
Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay
with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling
users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:36:40 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
I was thinking to use the term:
Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay
with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
[...]
What do you think about it?
There are some major problems with such a
as licence?
The DFSG doesn't specify license terms. It's a set of guidelines for
judging the freedoms granted to recipients of a work. This judgement
concerns not just the license from copyright, or patent, or trademark,
or any other particular monopolies. Rather, it addresses the combined
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
but I have complains against the new one.
The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has
concerns to make them known now. The draft you've read is *not* what
the
(with the exception of libdvdcss2)
since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any
Licence which comply with the DFSG.
That's great, it makes the free software community stronger and makes
your work useful to more people.
Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has
concerns to make them known now. [...]
Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of
being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade their
reject-all email
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has
concerns to make them known now. [...]
Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of
being able to use their anybrowser-busting web
On Sunday 11 June 2006 20:31, Måns Rullgård wrote:
--cut--
What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses
being deemed incompatible with each other. Examples are the GPL, the
OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License. I find it hard to
believe that most authors
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the
comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it
still stands.
Thank you. I don't recall that. I had hoped FSF would actually fix
their bad processes to give equal
which use the term DFSG as licence?
I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
but I have complains against the new one.
Thanks and Nice Weekend
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138
with the DFSG.
Question:
Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
but I have complains against the new one.
If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if
that does what you want. The FSF won't
to say, that my
Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG.
Question:
Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
but I have complains against the new one.
If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2
of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my
Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG.
Question:
Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
but I have complains against the new one
13 matches
Mail list logo
