On 10/06/2011 12:50 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote:
There will also be a community aspect where individuals will
develop and contribute components, just like every other open source
project However, some of the contributed components may not be
eligible for copyright protections. A component
On 12/19/2011 10:42 AM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
69 is way too few. In my little research of just around 600 man pages I
found over 100 different licenses -- mostly due to slight wording
changes.
Fedora is tracking 300+ different FOSS licenses.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
On 04/05/2012 11:35 AM, John Cowan wrote:
So put Apache before MIT/BSD, but don't drop them altogether.
Perhaps we should simply alphabetize these licenses? I'm not sure we'll
ever reach consensus on ordering by importance or value or usefulness.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
On 01/26/2015 08:42 AM, Maxthon Chan wrote:
The incident is that one project owner found his code used in an commercial
product without attribution but the Chinese-speaking court says that the
license is not enforceable if it is written in a language that the judge
cannot understand, and
Can't speak for Debian, but Fedora will happily take software licensed as
you describe.
On Mar 16, 2017 3:09 PM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> I agree that the Government can release it as open source, but as I
> understand it, not as Open Source.
ed Hat consider it to be Open Source?
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:31 PM
> > To: license-discu
6 matches
Mail list logo
