> > and it is also compatible with the french law !
>
> Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is
> *incompatible* with french law?!?
I didn't say that. I am just saying (or trying to say) that it has been
designed for the french (and european) law which is quite specific abou
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:50:42 + John Halton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:36:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > The license on the specification does not permit redistribution,
> > > so it's not even suitable for non-free.
> >
> > Mmmmh, it seems that copying is allowed
>
> copying
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:36:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > The license on the specification does not permit redistribution, so
> > it's not even suitable for non-free.
>
> Mmmmh, it seems that copying is allowed
copying != distribution
John
(TINLA)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is
> *incompatible* with french law?!?
I gather that one reason for some of the changes in GPL v2 (in
particular the change from "distribute" to "propogate/convey") was to
a
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:18:34 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Leuner:
>
> > I would like to ask if the following license meets the DFSG.
>
> The license on the specification does not permit redistribution, so
> it's not even suitable for non-free.
Mmmmh, it seems that copying is allowed:
[
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:30:35 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > However, why not just adopt the plain GNU GPL v2 ?
> CECILL is from INRIA too
I am aware of that.
The question could have as well been phrased: "why not accept the fact
that license proliferation is bad and stop using a new license, w
> However, why not just adopt the plain GNU GPL v2 ?
CECILL is from INRIA too and it is also compatible with the french law !
> > > Firstoff, from a technical point of view, shipping the *exact same
> > > code* in two different packages does not seem to be a good idea.
> > > Could this duplication
John Halton wrote:
>>> OTOH, if it is just a case of making a program that meets the spec.,
>>> and the program itself is free and does not contain the spec. itself,
>>> then I don't see that's a problem. (See the recent discussion here
>>> concerning a program that implemented a non-free RFC.)
>>
* John Leuner:
> I would like to ask if the following license meets the DFSG.
The license on the specification does not permit redistribution, so it's
not even suitable for non-free.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
9 matches
Mail list logo
