On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59:58PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:05 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly
getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1
*OR* obeying the SISSL. I chose
Hi Lionel,
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:49 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
OK, then. To implement that hopefully over time, bit by bit we can
incrementally re-write it as a clean MPL/LGPLv3+ thingit, we need to
clearly establish that all future contributions to these files are
LGPLv2.1+ /
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
postgresql-sdbc
few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on substance...
I only glanced at the commits)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
postgresql-sdbc
few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 05:33:48AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
I feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and
I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice
prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it.
hey, don't get
