* Joerg Jaspert:
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> current way to go? Reject, accept?
Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed
under the MPL. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision
at this stage.
--
To UNSUBSCR
Hi Michael and Justin,
Thank you for your help! I've submitted a bug (#359707) and will follow
its progress.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PRO
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Joerg Jaspert:
>
> > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> > current way to go? Reject, accept?
>
> Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed
> under the MPL.
Quite a few? What packages are
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:04:50 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Joerg Jaspert:
> >
> > > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats
> > > the current way to go? Reject, accept?
> >
> > Accept. Debian currently distributes qu
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
> > context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
> > specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the l
(I think this sub-thread is heading off on a tangent,
I've cut a bunch of material which seems to lead
nowhere significant. If I cut something important,
please feel free to correct me.)
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, I'll grant that the concept of "copy and distribute" is
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
> > > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
> > > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> non-free" mails.
>
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
> current way to go? Reject, accept?
Reject, unless the authors have announced relicen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If so, I expect it will be more
>efficient if we can approach the FSF for a blanket license change.
No; from what we can tell, RMS is personally blocking even the simplest and
most obvious license changes, and nobody with authority in the FSF will go up
against him, alt
9 matches
Mail list logo
