On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 06:58:19AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:
> Dear Andy,
> dear list members,
>
> thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
> I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Dear Andy,
dear list members,
thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> I think I'd agree with all of the above, especially in light of
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 07:33:45AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:
> Dear debian-legal-members,
>
> I am wondering, whether you consider 'The Unlicense' [0] to be
> DFSG-compliant? On the OSI-mailing list [1] has been a discussion
> arguing, that this license model is
>
> a) not global
> b) inconsistent
Dear debian-legal-members,
I am wondering, whether you consider 'The Unlicense' [0] to be
DFSG-compliant? On the OSI-mailing list [1] has been a discussion
arguing, that this license model is
a) not global
b) inconsistent and
c) unpredictable in its applicability
Searching debian-legal,
4 matches
Mail list logo
