On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
> DFSG-free". Do you see how it could be read that way?
You sound just like Henry Ford.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
> be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
> into primeval chaos.
Too late. :)
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. I have relicensed my changes under the Apache
> license and will upload a fixed package in a couple of minutes after some
> testing.
The reason I brought this up on debian-legal, is that there could be many such
packages that
The upstream license for tomcat is the Apache License. The maintainer,
however, has licenses his modifications under the GPL. However, according to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses, the
Apache license is not compatible with the GPL.
This means we can't distri
kes 1.10-6 (m68k) to
erlangen
===
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger
5 matches
Mail list logo
