On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:01:42PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > We consider the former to be DFSG-free and t
* Birzan George Cristian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 20:55]:
> First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not
> subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance!
>
> Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim
> made by nmap developers [1]:
>
> in accor
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:04:52PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> Subversion has some clauses in its license that seemed very questionable to
> me. Here they are for your convenience:
>
> 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> any, must include the following acknowled
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Birzan George Cristian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 20:55]:
> > First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not
> > subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've
Ok, I've included a new (and marked as draft) version of my previous
summary of the OPL discussion. Since the consensus seems to be that we
should formalize things a bit, I've come up with the following (draft,
even!) requirements for a good d-l summary.
1) Draft summaries should clearly be marke
Hi,
I'm trying to package something that is licensed under gpl, however a
library is licensed under the Ada Community License. I already found a
thread which talks about whether it's allowed or not.
10. of the DFSG speaks of 3 licenses, maybe it would be a better idea to
create a list of licens
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 17:35, Arvind Autar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to package something that is licensed under gpl, however a
> library is licensed under the Ada Community License. I already found a
> thread which talks about whether it's allowed or not.
That thread is not clear to me.
--
I have the same objection as before. The average person who doesn't read
lists like these won't know what the Dissident Test is, and it's not defined
in the DFSG. If someone has to search Google or mailing list archives to
understand the summary, it's not clear enough.
The best solution is proba
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> The average person who doesn't read lists like these won't know what
> the Dissident Test is, and it's not defined in the DFSG. If someone
> has to search Google or mailing list archives to understand the
> summary, it's not clear enough.
Like caselaw, i
9 matches
Mail list logo
