t is a good idea to start moving the colors around. Color
> > is a difficult thing to agree over, and setting up a voting system will
> > take a lot of time for something that is already established and
> > functioning. As far I understood, blue orange and purple where decided
&
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:11 AM, <
ubuntu-studio-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Send ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list submissions to
> ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:56 AM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr <
thgntlmnfrmtrlf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The ability to license
>
> something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what is
> currently released is open.
>
>
> Right, but it *does* make it not copyleft. So is that really what
Hello,
I did a bit of piloting in the last days, but never got around to
sitting down 4 hours in one go. Anyway, here's what I got done:
Fixed the sponsoring overview, an MP from a private team broke the
script in mulitple ways. Made it pep8 compliant too.
syncpackage -s logan -b 1592224
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote:
> The thing is I don't see why [a custodian] would need or want the
> right to relicense things [...]
Classic example of a relicence from GPL to MIT/X11 was Mesa3D to
enable tight integration with the X.org codebase. This means we all
now have
