> Thomas,
>
> I discussed this matter with our CEO and he asked me to resolve the
> compliancy. I iwll update you shortly.
>
> ~ Adam
Hi Adam,
Ok, that sounds good, as I would really hate to push for a
package that has some controversy on the freeness of it's license.
I am very happy to see tha
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:55 +0800
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not
> > how that licence is or is not described on a website.
>
> But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of
> its content:
>
> Open Source
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
> "Thomas Goirand" wrote:
>
>>> It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
>>> that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
>>> If there is commentary that can be read counter
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
"Thomas Goirand" wrote:
> > It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> > that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> > If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not
Le Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:20:51AM -, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> > Thomas,
> >
> > It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> > that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> > If there is commentary that can be read counter to that,
> Thomas,
>
> It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a
> good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoin
On Oct 07, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word "must".
Which would not make it non-free either, as it is not part of the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
> Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been
> discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I
> just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion
> about if on
brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
>> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
>> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, a
Marcus Better wrote:
> This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
>
> Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
> http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
>
> Here they make claims that d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
>> Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> Hell, I missed it.
Oh well :-)
> This doesn't appear at all on the license.txt. Do you
> think I could still package it for the non-free archive?
I don
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Goirand
* Package name: libjs-extjs
Version : 3.0.0
Upstream Author : Ext JS LLC
* URL : http://www.extjs.com/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Javascript, PHP
Description : a cross-browser JavaScript l
12 matches
Mail list logo
