Quoting Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That is correct, and that scenario is common in many
> almost-but-not-quite-free software projects. For example, the main
> PovRay team would like to change the license to a Free Software license,
> but so many contributors are unavailable now that rep
Branden Robinson wrote:
> In general, I think we should respect the wishes of the licensor, even
> in they are not DFSG-free. There are occasional exceptions to this, as
> in the case where something that has been handled as Free Software in
> the past falls under the control of a new organization
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 06:47:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Correct.
>
> Interesting question to debian-legal for curiosity's sake: could the
> right to distribute "partially or in whole" be stretched enough to argue
> that modified versions are just various partial distributions of hwb
> com
Stephen Stafford wrote:
> It was (and is) my understanding that all material in hwb was submitted to hwb
> for inclusion __under the current hwb license__. However, because not all the
> contributors are available (in a couple of cases, I believe it's not known who
> the contributors are even) log
Quoting Göran Weinholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: hwb
> Severity: serious
>
> I talked to one of hwb's upstreams (Tomas Ögren) about licensing hwb
> under a DFSG free license. He told me that they couldn't do that,
> because they don't own the rights to the material. If they don't own
> the
5 matches
Mail list logo
