Hi Francesco, John, and everybody else reading this,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:39:41 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> Failing to retain the license text in the package distribution is in
> fact lack of compliance with the 2-claus
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:36:49AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so
> > long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can
> > perpetually and unidirectionally flow to GPL projects.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD
[...]
A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's
indeed compatible with the GNU GPL).
It's just a distinct license with different (and much simpler)
wording...
--
http://
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> [...]
> > GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD
> [...]
>
> A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's
> indeed compatible with the GNU GPL).
> It's ju
On 12/10/2017 06:12 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> In particular I'm concerned about lines like this from
> d/copyright:
>
> "po/uk.po" is © 2005 Mykola Lynnyk and is distributed under the terms of the
> GPL.
>
> Where the new po/uk.po is GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD:
The line "Copyright (C)
5 matches
Mail list logo
