On Feb 03, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly
> but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in
> the "Apache", etc. cases. However, I don't think that should be extended
> to the general case; "nor m
(Why is this being CC'd to d-d?)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:06:32PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
>may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
>from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
>
> For example, I shoul
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, Charles Fry wrote:
> Instead I propose that all RC bugs in PHP Group software released
> with the PHP License be closed.
>
> For the record, all previous discussions of this matter on
> debian-legal have suggested that the PHP License might be non-free
> for everything (includ
-Original Message-
> From: José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:27:53 -0200
> To: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debia
urrent RC bugs related to the PHP License.
>
> cheers,
> Charles
>
> -Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages
> > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
discussion and deal professionally with the upstream
authors of the current RC bugs related to the PHP License.
cheers,
Charles
-Original Message-
> From: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: PHP License for PHP Group packages
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:41:33 -0500
> To
6 matches
Mail list logo
