On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
> DFSG-free". Do you see how it could be read that way?
You sound just like Henry Ford.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
The upstream license for tomcat is the Apache License. The maintainer,
however, has licenses his modifications under the GPL. However, according to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses, the
Apache license is not compatible with the GPL.
This means we can't distri
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. I have relicensed my changes under the Apache
> license and will upload a fixed package in a couple of minutes after some
> testing.
The reason I brought this up on debian-legal, is that there could be many such
packages that
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
> be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
> into primeval chaos.
Too late. :)
kes 1.10-6 (m68k) to
erlangen
===
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger
5 matches
Mail list logo
