SFLC Letter about PHP License

If no-one has any more concerns about the letter, should it be sent off now? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e930ee.2090...@bitmessage.ch

Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian

Steve M. Robbins writes ("Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian"): > My guess is that the legality of distribution hinges on how the software is > represented. For example, [1] defines "device" as: > > any article, instrument, apparatus or contrivance, including any > component

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

Dariusz Dwornikowski writes ("Re: A clarification with dual licensing"): > And what about a situation where: > - package A MIT links to SSL > - package B GPL links to package A > - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation > > Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a vio

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

> > or the "and" word glues these two licenses together ? > > Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use > both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you > should use only the MIT license. And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to