On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:51:57AM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
> Hey Dann,
>
> Not sure what you want me to say, but "GPL version 2 or later" is
> fine with me. It was a long time ago, but as I recall I just wrote
> a shell script and did a bit of packaging work.
hey Richard,
That's perfect, tha
Hey Dann,
Not sure what you want me to say, but "GPL version 2 or later" is
fine with me. It was a long time ago, but as I recall I just wrote
a shell script and did a bit of packaging work.
Richard
dann frazier wrote:
(Trying a different address for Richard, @debian.org bounces)
On Sat, Se
(Trying a different address for Richard, @debian.org bounces)
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:08:36AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Peter Rock wrote:
> > Hello, I hope I'm contacting the right folks!
> >
> > I'm trying to find out the copyright status of the elilo-installer
> > package to see if it qualif
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 09:30:42AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> > suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license. I
> > place my modifications to it under this
> I think everyone on this list is aware of how copyleft works.
Yeah sorry about that. I wasn't trying to be facetious.
> I suspect
> Joey meant that it was sanest for it also to be under "GPL v2 or later"
> rather than "GPL v2 only" or "GPL v3 only" or "GPL v3 or later", all of
> which would be
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:21:33PM +0800, Peter Rock wrote:
> On 9/29/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bdale is the original author of elilo-installer, although it's derived
> > from lilo-installer. [...]
> > Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> > sugge
On 9/29/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bdale is the original author of elilo-installer, although it's derived
> from lilo-installer. [...]
> Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license.
If elil
Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license. I
> place my modifications to it under this license. Could the listed
> people please respond with a similar statement?
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:41:19AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:08:36AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> > suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license. I
> > place my modifications to i
> Isn't this our _second_ udeb that got past the ftp-masters with no
> copyright file? It's not the last one. See upcoming mail for
> quik-installer. :-/
Yes, it is. I did silo-installer a few months back.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:08:36AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license. I
> place my modifications to it under this license. Could the listed
> people please respond with a
Peter Rock wrote:
> Hello, I hope I'm contacting the right folks!
>
> I'm trying to find out the copyright status of the elilo-installer
> package to see if it qualifies as free software or not. Below is a bit
> of a description and I was advised by debian-legal to ask the package
> maintainers. H
p!
Cheers,
Peter.
Author: Steve Langasek
Date: 2007-09-29 07:56 +800
To: debian-legal
Subject: Re: elilo-installer copyright status
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:33:11PM +0800, Peter Rock wrote:
> I'm requesting help to verify whether or not the package
> "elilo-in
13 matches
Mail list logo
