Thanks for your answer.
GPL-compatibility would be an interesting point, but the problem that we
encounter is the GPL copyleft, which is very strong, due to the
interpretation of the FSF concerning derivative works. Moreover this
will be probably be enforced in GPL v3. It is annoying as soon a
Fabian Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just a little question.
>
>> If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends
>> the GPL v2.0.
>
> What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
> strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply lin
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - Item #5 "External Deployment" places distribution-like burdens on
> deployment. E.g., when the Work is made available over a network
> source must be distributed. This is a use restriction. While the
> DFSG does not explicitly prohibit this,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:36:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I'm reposting this as a draft (a) because it's been longer than I
> planned before posting the new version, and (b) there are some changes
> to this (e.g., including the fourth issue, and the way I ground the
> first one) that I figu
Hi,
Just a little question.
If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends the
GPL v2.0.
What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply linking a
module does not produce a derivative wor
5 matches
Mail list logo
