On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:05:37 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:50:29AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:30 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> >
> > > Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFSG
> > > license :) Next version w
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:50:29AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:30 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFSG
> > license :) Next version will be released under BSD license :
>
> The LICENSE file now seems to co
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:30 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:47:39PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
>
> Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFS
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:47:39PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
Upstreams change license to BSD-like to be sure to have DFSG
license :) Next version will be released under BSD license :
http://
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:57:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely, but it
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> > >
> > > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
> >
> > I don't agree.
> > The licens
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> >
> > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
>
> I don't agree.
> The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference).
> I do *no
On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, If I were you, I would try and persuade upstream to change
> license.
>
> Since the current license is a clone of Apache Software License, Version
> 1.1, you could suggest that they switch to Apache License Version
> 2.0[8], which is D
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:14:30 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
>
> [2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
> I think your ITP License line is incorr
Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.
> I read debian-legal archives to have information about
Hi,
I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
I read debian-legal archives to have information about
Apache License version 1.1. Situation seems confuse on the first
thread [3]. This thread [4] explains there is no problem for
Apache softwa
11 matches
Mail list logo
