Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:58:17PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>My entire point here is that,
>>
>>1. You don't need a .wav "source" for an .ogg "binary"
>>2. You don't need upstream pic "source"
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
>
>A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
>to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
>problems and require exceptions (e.g. openssl). AFAIK the new
>s
Don Armstrong wrote:
That is, if,
1. data format is known, and
2. data is under a free license according to DFSG
then such data is free according to DFSG.
If the work satisfies DFSG ยง2, then yes. If not, no.
Then maybe this is just a bunch of vapor. I don't think sourc
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>That is, on principle I agree with Andrew, but in practice I'm leaning
>to agree with you (but I'm not personally convinced strongly either way).
>In practice, Debian has never fought the source-code battle for images,
>fonts, sounds, movie clips, etc., and it's not clear tha
I'll ask debian-legal. I have a pretty good idea that LGPL is ok for
source, but binary would be GPL due to MySQL client, but I'll ask anyway.
This is a question about possible license combinations. More
specifically, can a more freely licensed software than GPL use a GPL
library.
>>It states tha
Hi,
Could anyone tell me if the "BSD Protection License" can be used
for main?
It can be found at:
http://people.debian.org/~adamm/LICENSE
Thanks,
Adam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:57:21PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-22 20:46:09 +0100 Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Could anyone tell me if the "BSD Protection License" can be used
> >for main?
>
> You should include the text of a licence w
Hi,
I need clarification on what a package is. For example, the policy
states (2.2.1):
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
"Recommends", or "Build-Depen
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:23:11PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I need clarification on what a package is. For example, the policy
> states (2.2.1):
Maybe I posted to the wrong list :) debian-policy might be
better suited to answer this question.
- Adam
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
do what upstream w
Robert Millan wrote:
>> And so on. "* Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere" is simply false,
>
> Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting
> with "The new file seems to be asserting..." above).
>
> Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem,
11 matches
Mail list logo
