Anthony DeRobertis writes ("Re: clementine: installs non-free plugin at
runtime"):
> I think it'd be reasonable to make the confirmation dialog explicitly
> say that the plugin is not free software. But other than that, which
> does not warrant severity: serious, I think this bug should be closed
(please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list)
On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote:
>>
>> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
>> the BSL?
>
> Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require some
> compiled libraries? If so, it does not mat
Hi,
I consider adding library routines support for MusicXML to my
application in main.
http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/musicxml-xsd/
http://www.musicxml.org/dtds/license.html
Would this cause a legal conflict? Or would it make it impossible to
distribute in main?
Bests,
Joël Krähemann
IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> (please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list)
>
> On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote:
>>>
>>> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
>>> the BSL?
>>
>> Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require
Hi all,
French government uses now lo/ol license to publish its open datas:
https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open_Licence.pdf
"To facilitate the re-use of the « Information », this licence has been
designed to be compatible with any licence which requires at least the
attribu
Hi Xavier,
I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG".
A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it,
seems to be okay.
Hopefully more experimented eyes will read it too.
IANAL,
Jérémy (x97).
2017-11-21 18:35 GMT+01:00 Xavier :
> Hi all,
>
> French govern
Joël Krähemann writes ("legal issues of libmusicxml"):
> I consider adding library routines support for MusicXML to my
> application in main.
>
> http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/musicxml-xsd/
> http://www.musicxml.org/dtds/license.html
>
> Would this cause a legal conflict? Or would it mak
Jérémy Lal writes:
> I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG".
I agree.
> A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it,
> seems to be okay.
More precisely, “pass DFSG” is not something we can ask of licenses.
Rather, the DFSG are for evaluating a *work*
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:11:28AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Bombe writes ("Freeness of vague Synopsys license"):
> > Keeping these files would be "nice to have" but not a requirement. Users
> > with legacy VHDL projects using Synopsys libraries would need to find
> > and install these li
9 matches
Mail list logo
