On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
So what do you suggest? Remove GPL-COMPATIBLE and move everything
into FSF-APPROVED?
Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE to
be present.
The GLEP would also require a NON-MUST-HAVE-READ
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:52:10PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
So what do you suggest? Remove GPL-COMPATIBLE and move everything
into FSF-APPROVED?
Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE
Hi,
Had some more thoughts about that licensing issue and wanted to make some
suggestions.
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with it is, as
stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. GPL2 and 3 are
incompatible, so it doesn't mean GPL-compatible are
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean GPL-compatible are
all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know
On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.
++
Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big This is free and open source software
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean GPL-compatible
