> Matthaeus Wander writes:
> Package: netdiag
> Version: 1.0-13
> Severity: minor
AIUI, the Strobe license (as quoted below) fails to meet DFSG 1.
Therefore, my guess is that the severity of this bug has to be
raised to ‘grave’. (Which I'll do unless there be obje
> Bastien ROUCARIES writes:
> Hi, I am going to package fastcap and fasthenry. i have
> neithertheless a problem with the last paragraph of the license
> What do you think ?
[…]
Unless I be mistaken, this is a BSD-style license. The last
paragraph, AIUI, is just one
Does anyone know what license GCTP [1, 2] is available under?
It seems that I'm not the first to wonder on this (e. g., [3].)
Is it in public domain?
I need GCTP in order to prepare Debian packages for HDF-EOS,
HDF-EOS 5 and SDP Toolkit [4], which are requi
Walter Landry wrote:
Ivan Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that it's possible to design a licensing exception that would
essentially say the following:
- For non-ModSecurity-related modules, allow any open source licence.
We would either call for any OSI-certified
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Ivan Ristic:
The problem is that an Apache installation typically consists of many
modules, each with a potentially different licence. I am only aware of
the incompatibility between the GPLv2 and the ASL, although other
issues may exist. Although GPLv2 is our licence of
to my peers
at Breach Security, after which a decision will be made.
Thanks,
Ivan Ristic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
>> ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
>> Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software and its
>> documentation for any purpose without fee is hereby granted,
>>
It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
$ cat gdal/frmts/hdf4/hdf-eos/README
The following source files are taken from the HDF-EOS package
EHapi.c,
GDapi.c,
SWapi.c,
HDFEOSVersion.h,
HdfEosDef.h,
ease.h
and have
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
> understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
> prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
> one's peer
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:13:25AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Is this license considered DFSG free? The part that seems like it might
> > be troublesome is the "The author makes no representations of possessing
> > full or partial copyright to the LRC code nor
Is this license considered DFSG free? The part that seems like it might
be troublesome is the "The author makes no representations of possessing
full or partial copyright to the LRC code nor the algorythyms used in this
module, as said is either public knowledge or inspired by multiple
sources."
rt the app to
QT 2 or convert it yourself.
Ivan
--
Ivan E. Moore II
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
EG plugin for
The GIMP.
--
Ivan E. Moore II
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
e any alternative (and working) java 1.3 versions with
> better license/speed/etc?
that I'm not sure about..but there are alternatives..not sure there
licenses.
Ivan
--
Ivan E. Moore II
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 12:31:49PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
>
> > kdenetwork -
>
> > This will all happen after qt2.2 is released with the GPL lic and
> > packaged/uploaded...
> > (except for kdelibs and suppor
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:40:27AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is
> > > > using
> > > > the QPL 2.0 license and a
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:59:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using
> > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
>
> Qt
What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using
the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
Ivan
--
----
Ivan E. Moore II
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
the enthusiasm and will work hard as always in a new
alternative!
Ok, thanks to everyone, sorry if I have bothered too much. Goodbye.
--
Ivan Baldo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://members.xoom.com/baldo - ICQ 10215364
Phone: (598) (2) 613 3223.
Caldas 1781, Malvin, Montevideo, Uruguay, So
y had decided to
make the Turbo Vision library free software and they said that didn't
yet and that they doubt they will do it in the future.
Then Richard Stallman talked with a lawyer and it said that the Turbo
Vision code cannot be used.
I am Ivan Baldo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
e not FUD.
Plus...some of us Like KDE. :)
(tho I'd love to see a gnome/kde mix.)
Ivan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty
http://www.tdyc.com
21 matches
Mail list logo
