On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 02:33:18AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Marcus wrote:
> > No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> > exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> > the GFDL might become such a case).
>
> The vim
Marcus wrote:
> No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> the GFDL might become such a case).
The vim license was listed as a free license on gnu.org while
debian-legal debated it. (A
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 04:21:16PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I have not yet checked if we have perl modules that are only under
> Artistic, and not dual licensed under GPL, but we probably do.
Yes, we do. I maintain one of them (libgetargs-long-perl). :(
--
Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:44:44AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I'm not really sure whether the DFSG should also be read as
> requiring the free right to make and sell hardcopies. One could argue
> either way from the text of the DFSG, I think.
Should it be read to permit the free righ
4 matches
Mail list logo
