On Friday 08 December 2006 13:26, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Actually Sarge include mozilla-firefox, not firefox, so we only need
> a transition package named "mozilla-firefox" for the upgrade.
Well, now, that would be even more troubling. If I am
requesting "mozilla-firefox" it sure sounds like I'
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:07:26AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> Couldn't GPL+exception be used? Or is the incompatibility both ways?
> (ie the PHP license has a clause prohibiting additional restrictions
> that the GPL would put on)
>
Possibly. I maintain httperf, which is GPL but also lin
On 12/9/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:05:52PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hi,
If you are the author of said application, you could release under the
MIT or BSD-type license.
Couldn't GPL+exception be used? Or is the incompatibility both ways?
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:05:52PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the status of the discussion with PEAR (or PHP Group) about
> using the PHP license in some of the PEAR packages? [1][2]
>
> I'm currently in need of QuickForm (v3) in a GNU GPL'd application,
> but QuickForm is re
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from:
> > [...] Bot
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:21:24AM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El martes, 5 de diciembre de 2006 a las 13:57:48 -0800, Jeff Carr escrib?a:
>
> > I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
> > use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
> > also
Hi,
What is the status of the discussion with PEAR (or PHP Group) about
using the PHP license in some of the PEAR packages? [1][2]
I'm currently in need of QuickForm (v3) in a GNU GPL'd application,
but QuickForm is released under the PHP license, which is incompatible
:/
Thanks,
[1] http://lis
Hi all again!
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU SFDL v1.
I apologize for repeating some of the comments I've already written
regarding the GNU FDL v2 draft, but... blame the FSF for publishing
*two* license drafts with large chunks of identical text in common...
Once more,
Hi all!
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
The full text of the draft is available at http://gplv3.fsf.org/
> GNU Free Documentation License
>
> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
>
> THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- Eugene cannot use the name "ChangedFont", because it's the name of
> the work he's modifying
>- neither can Eugene use the name "MyFont", because it's the name of
> the work "ChangedFont" is based on
>- Eugene calls his font "Enhanc
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] Just because it's fun to argue, though [...]
I think it's extremely unfunny to have off-topic angels-on-pinhead debates
looping away. If anything on-topic comes out of this subthread, please
summarise it in a new subthread.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinio
On Friday 08 December 2006 00:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:28:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, you propose that Firefox refers to both the code base and the
> > > browser?
> >
> > Not only that, but firefox (lowercase, not as
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:28:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, you propose that Firefox refers to both the code base and the browser?
> Not only that, but firefox (lowercase, not as in the trademark)
While I agree with the conclusion that there's no grea
13 matches
Mail list logo
