Le Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:00:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> * Charles Plessy:
>
> > - The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore
> >does not have special requirements for binary distributions.
>
> This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright sta
* Charles Plessy:
> - The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore
>does not have special requirements for binary distributions.
This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright statements to
display them, you may not remove them (see §5 (d) in the GPL
version
Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>
> If you are convinced that a public-domain-like situation is actually
> desirable, then, AFAIK, the best way to achieve it is the Creative
> Commons public domain dedication [1], or possibly CC0 [2].
>
> [1] http://creativecomm
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
Le Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 03:52:40PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> |
> | There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you
> | America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies
> | with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether
> | som
Charles Plessy (02/07/2009):
> […] may I suggest the BOLA license, that is a politically correct
> version of the WTFPL?
>
> http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/
Quoting it:
| The BOLA text
| Here's the text. I usually place it in a file named LICENSE in the top
directory of the project.
| It's compos
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:03:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
>
> Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license
> under which the wiki page is released?
All my cont
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
[...]
> I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page:
> http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license
under which the wiki page is rele
Dear all,
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. In order to start clarifying the situation, I propose to
list for the most common licenses when they require to re
11 matches
Mail list logo