contact you just as a formality.
>
> Else if you are not, and you know who that person or a point of contact is
> Please let me know, and put me in the right direction.
>
> Thanks
>
> Marcia
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 4:57 AM Michael Stehmann
>
Am Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:45:11PM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > I just don't think the solution is to ignore copyright or licensing
> > statements.
>
> That's not the goal. The question, which keeps being raised in part
> because I don't think it's gotten a good
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 06:18:20AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
> Can we ship GNU Parallel with a small wrapper that removes the notice?
> Being text-based, it would not modify the software at all. I am
> thinking about something like:
>
> $ echo 'NOTICE: Wanted output.' | perl -pe '{ s/^NOTICE:
Hi,
since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
list for advise.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> Ian Turner wrote:
> > On 8/28/21 7:41 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >>I updated the patc
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:39:48AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> The bigger problem for entering Debian is what Andreas mentions, that
> the software uses Qt4 instead of Qt5. Once you have released a new
> version that uses Qt5 it could potentially enter Debian.
To be correct: Version 0.9.4 in Debi
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Daniel Hakimi wrote:
> Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you didn't
> say what that license actually was. What license is your code available
> under?
GPL-3+ [1]
BTW, I think if a Debian package is published the requirement
Hi Felix,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:39:08PM +0200, Felix Natter wrote:
>
> Short term sponsoring will be much appreciated :-)
In case I'm not AFK (on 20.+21.10. I will be offline) usually sponsoring
in a less than 24h time frame is the usual response time.
Please keep on your good work
Hi Ira,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0700, Ira Kalet wrote:
>
> I had the good fortune at a recent social event to meet an attorney
> for one of the big multinational corporations in the medical device
> business, whose job is to look after FDA regulatory issues. He even
> was familiar wi
[Please keep Ira Kalet and the Debian Med mailing list in CC]
Hello,
I'm forwarding a part of a discussion to you legal experts for
clarification:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:15:49AM -0700, Ira Kalet wrote:
> >
> >>3. Finally, there is still the issue of what the US FDA might say
> >>about distri
Hi Laszlo,
I'm forewarding this to debian-legal list [keeping
debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org in CC would be great]
because I do not feel fully competent for this question.
However, I think in any case it is worth trying to educate authors about
the advantages of a free license. We
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Leandro Doctors wrote:
2009/3/16 Julia Koschinsky :
as far as the GeoDa Center is concerned, anyone who wants to use,
add value, make available or any other use they see for our sample
data for non-commercial purposes is welcome to it.
---
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect analysis by month and by volume would be more illuminating. I
took a look at the code, but there's not much explanation. Is it
possible to add volumes in an easy way?
Sorry the code is crude at best - I will rewrite it from scratch
if this analysis
Hi,
as you can read in my lightning talk at DebConf
http://people.debian.org/~tille/talks/200808_lightning/
I did some investigation on who is frequently posting
on our mailing lists. I now created graphs until
end of last year and write a short summary for
those lists I regard worth a comme
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html
This is a good effort. As a maintainer of three non-free packages
(molphy, treetool, phylip) I can assure you that I regularly try
to contact the authors of these programms. For the first tw
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > Is there any way for xmedcon to become official without taking those parts
> > mentioned above out of the source code (which neither the upstream author
> > nor
> > me would find very attractive).
>
> Nope. We cannot distribute software that doesn't
Hello,
I'd like to foreward this problem because I'm no expert in law. I would
really appreciate, if you would foreward your answers to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], because I'm not subscribed to
debian-legal. (The relation to Debian is, that
I plan to package GnuMed once it is in a releasable state.)
-
16 matches
Mail list logo
