Steve Langasek schrieb:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Michael Below wrote:
>
>
>> Am Mi 11 Jul 2007 13:07:03 CEST
>> schrieb Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
The AS assemblers and the ASLINK relocating linker
are placed in the Public Domain. Publ
On 7/11/07, Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. The agreement is simply to make sure that the upstream author can
include the patches in the (LGPLed) upstream source. As long as one is
allowed to modify the source also without sending the patch upstream,
everything should be fine.
Th
Hi Andres!
You wrote:
> It's required that this license agreement be filled out and submitted
> by anyone submitting patches upstream.
> http://www.ogre3d.org/downloads/licensing.txt
> Could this be a problem?
No. The agreement is simply to make sure that the upstream author can
include the pat
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Michael Below wrote:
> Am Mi 11 Jul 2007 13:07:03 CEST
> schrieb Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > The AS assemblers and the ASLINK relocating linker
> > > are placed in the Public Domain. Publication or distribution of
> > >
Scribit Andres Mejia dies 11/07/2007 hora 12:43:
> It's required that this license agreement be filled out and submitted
> by anyone submitting patches upstream.
That's like with the FSF, I suppose. Nothing forces you to submit them
anything, so that is orthogonal to freeness of the code.
Quickly
Hello,
It's required that this license agreement be filled out and submitted
by anyone submitting patches upstream.
http://www.ogre3d.org/downloads/licensing.txt
Could this be a problem?
--
Regards,
Andres Mejia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Hi,
Am Mi 11 Jul 2007 13:07:03 CEST
schrieb Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The AS assemblers and the ASLINK relocating linker
> > are placed in the Public Domain. Publication or distribution of
> >these programs for non-commercial use is hereby granted with
> >
[Added FSFE-UK to CC]
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting http://ossg.bcs.org/2007/07/24/:
[...]
> Obviously this is a very bad idea. [...]
> A Debian Developer would be a natural choice and would have good
> standing to informally expand (on their on behalf) on such statements.
> Wo
Hello,
First of all, I'm CCing the debian-legal mailing list for opinions on
the license issues. Debian-legal people: please ignore the building
stuff at the end of the mail.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:55:30PM +0200, Borut Razem wrote:
>> In doc/readme, it says:
>> License:
>> SDCC is
Quoting http://ossg.bcs.org/2007/07/24/:
The Open Source Specialist Group (OSSG) will be holding an interactive
event on Tuesday 24th July 2007 over a proposal to create a British
Computer Society (BCS) Open Source Licence.
Obviously this is a very bad idea. To make the point against stupi
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Don Armstrong:
> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Don Armstrong:
> >> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> >> An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it
> >> >> unambiguously specifies all of the ab
* Don Armstrong:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Don Armstrong:
>> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
>> >> An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it
>> >> unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the
>> >> copyright holder. C
12 matches
Mail list logo
