On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message , Andrew
> Dalke writes
>>> I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and
>>> by doing so you are taking away user rights.
>>
>> Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
In message ,
Andrew Dalke writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by
doing so you are taking away user rights.
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Let's sa
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I may (well) be wrong, but I've always understood the INTENT of the artistic
> licence to be "BSD plus a trademark licence".
It has some clauses which are decidedly non-BSD-ish. See for example section
(8) of the Artistic License 2.0.
I
[ on combining LGPL and Artistic Licenses in a single JAR file
as part of a Java library distribution.]
On Dec 12, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I believe that neither of these licences specify the licence of the code
> they are linked with, so this will be alright. The resultin
In message <20091212142624.gl10...@matthew.ath.cx>, Matthew Johnson
writes
My understanding is that mixing the Artistic License and LGPL 2.1 is
not possible. I base this primarily on the FSF statement that they
consider the Artistic License to be incompatible with the GPL. I have
not found a sta
On Fri Dec 11 22:42, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> There seems to be a licensing problem with some of the chemistry software
> packages, at least one of which is included in Debian. I'm working with a few
> of the package developers to see if there really is a problem. We need some
> better advice than
6 matches
Mail list logo
