On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
> > "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
> > of a lot of precedent indicating that us
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
> "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
> of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is
> acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAI
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:03:43PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> When I tried to get a Perl module with this license in Debian, I got the
> following reason from James Troup for not accepting the above license
> statement (and I quote):
>
> Sorry to be pedantic but the only external fil
[your linewrapping is weird]
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:56:32AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> >"those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work
> >under
> >the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void."
> >
> >...because it's not the GPL anymore. It's a something-else license
4 matches
Mail list logo
