I did a quick review after seeing the message to debian-legal; the *changes*
look fine (several are very valuable improvements, such as the addition of
"or copyright law" to the first clause). But I never did review the
original licenses, which I should
From the point of view of Debian, i
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually part
> of the license:
>
> "Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is
> licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use t
On Jan 24, 2004, at 14:17, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the merits
of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group like
Apache
doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion about licenses
under
development. This puts De
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually
>part
>> of the license:
>>
>> "Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work
is
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Better assurance that Debian will find a license acceptable when applied
>to software and a coordinated way for Debian to provide feedback on
>licenses under development means that Debian can have a greater impact
>on licenses under development and much le
5 matches
Mail list logo
