On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> > the GPL, but a
Hi,
A consultant listed on http://www.debian.org/consultants/ reported that
he is receiving "targeted spam", asking him to put his resume on some
other servers (if you want to know more about this spam, I can ask him a
copy). He has been asking if we could add a note such as (just quoting):
"I th
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if
Yes. I meant the copyright holder.
Andrew
On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put
Is this spam email spam? I would think that you couldn't really
copyright an email address. And who exactly is this spam from? If they
are requesting something they should be traceable. Also, are other
consultants getting the same? Is it really spam, or just heaps of
inappropriate requests?
Andrew
Scripsit Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> He has been asking if we could add a note such as (just quoting):
> "I think you should consider putting a note that the information on
> http://www.us.debian.org/consultants/ is copyrighted by the Debian
> project, and can be used only for customers
6 matches
Mail list logo
