[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>,
>| Amusingly, it's only the
>| filename and you can probably make an symlink or some other
>| alias while complying with this, so it's more comedy than a bug.
>`
>
>So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements
>are acceptable as long as
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...]
>
> I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision"
> by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say.
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...]
I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision"
by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's
rather difficult to discuss things wit
Hi,
I'm trying to understand how to interpret DFSG clause 4, in particular
under circumstances where the name of a file also encodes its purpose or
usage or any other kind of "API".
I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, and it seems to me
that one of the major obstacles of the old L
4 matches
Mail list logo
