Brian,
Thanks for the follow-up. I read the post on debian-legal, and
visited the Creative Commons discussion lists archive to see the
discussion there. I believe that I understand the issues.
Let me be clear on Sleepycat's position: The documentation and
the source code will be licensed in a
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in documentation?
mike
All,
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed
would be in the interest of the community gene
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your following up. I'm including
the Debian team on this email, in the hope that I can help
to drive everyone to agreement on the point at last. I don't
have an email address for Dave Turner, so would be grateful
if you'd pass this along to him. I've included the licen
Dann wrote:
> Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest
> approach.
>
> Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db
> packaging, release, or legal teams. I hope that they'll jump in if
> they are in disagreement with any of the statements I've ma
5 matches
Mail list logo
