Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:15:35 -0400 Arc Riley wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >> > It says that I must offer "an opportunity to receive the Corresponding >> > Source

Re: Genicorp General Public Licence

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm currently packaging libopenoffice-oodoc-perl and stumbled upon its >> license: >> >> > This software is free software. It is subject to the terms and >> > conditions of both

Re: GPL and OpenSSL in libs3

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Bryan Donlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> I've recently been discussing[1] with another developer his libs3 >> library - a library to access ama

GPL and OpenSSL in libs3

n unredistributable binary without realizing. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Bryan Donlan [1] - http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?threadID=23723&start=0&tstart=0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#468768: GPLv2-(only) software linking against GPLv3+ library

sirable in the long run, it ought to be not in violation of either licence, right? That said it's probably untenable enough to warrant an RC bug, but I'm curious as to if there's any gaping hole in my logic :) Please CC on replies; I'm not subscribed to debian-legal. Thanks, Bryan Donlan signature.asc Description: Digital signature