Scribit Luca Capello dies 25/11/2007 hora 19:33:
> Back in October 2006, Pierre Thierry asked if these parts could be
> allowed even if not-free [4], but no one answered him. Since I'm not
> a license nor an RFC expert, here I am :-)
Now that I think of it, quoting a copyrighted ma
Scribit Andres Mejia dies 11/07/2007 hora 12:43:
> It's required that this license agreement be filled out and submitted
> by anyone submitting patches upstream.
That's like with the FSF, I suppose. Nothing forces you to submit them
anything, so that is orthogonal to freeness of the code.
Quickly
Scribit Anthony W. Youngman dies 02/07/2007 hora 21:37:
> > But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2
> > or later" under the GPL version 3?
> Actually, YOU CAN'T.
>
> The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the
> copyright.
Actually, the text s
I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
derived work without written permission.
IIUC, it is absolutely not DFSG-compliant, is it?
It means that Debian must have written permission to redistribute the
pac
4 matches
Mail list logo
