Regards Jimmy Nilsson
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
-- End of forwarded message --
--
Serafeim Zanikolas
http://www.it.teithe.gr/~serzan/
list
[0] http://nodebox.net/code/index.php/Web
- Forwarded message from Serafeim Zanikolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Serafeim Zanikolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NodeBox Web license
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:45:38 +
To: Frederik De Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
hello Debian legal folks,
I'm looking for an up-to-date compatibility matrix of /usr/share/common-licenses
(modulo documentation licenses). I've recently taken over the Debian-native
package adequate, which among other things checks for binaries that link in
libraries that are available under an i
I've missed the GPL-2/LGPL-3 incompatibility:
> GPL-2: GPL-3, MPL-1.1
should be:
GPL-2: GPL-3, MPL-1.1, LGPL-3
> LGPL-3: MPL-1.1
should be:
LGPL-3: MPL-1.1, GPL-2
ps. please cc me on replies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hello Francesco! nice to read you too and thanks for the feedback :)
On Sun Jun 30, 2024 at 11:50 PM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:37:22 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
[..]
> If I understand correctly, we are talking about linking-compatibility
> here.
that&#
hi Francesco,
> I would say that the missing detail is that license compatibility is
> not a transitive relation!
indeed! I knew that but somehow it fell off my consciousness while looking at
that wikipedia diagram
> Well, before I start sending patches (for instance to reintroduce GPL-2
> in th
hi Nicolas,
thanks for the feedback!
On Tue Jul 2, 2024 at 10:24 PM CEST, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> > right, I guess that's why the wikipedia diagram distinguishes between MPL-2
> > and
> > MPL-2-no-copyleft-exception. I think that we don't have to worry about that
> > because spdx.org/license
Francesco, thanks for the patch! applied and pushed (and additionally added you
as an author)
Nicholas, Francesco, you're now both set as reviewers. can I ask you to both let
me know whether you're happy for me to change the review status to completed?
sidenote: I'm toying with the idea of propos
On Mon Jul 8, 2024 at 11:39 PM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 15:50:59 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
thanks again Francesco!
> Not yet, because I made a mistake.
>
> See the attached patch, which fixes the mistake (basically, when I was
> writing the various L
Hi Nicholas,
>> can I ask you to both let me know whether you're happy for me to change the
>> review status to completed?
> Do you mean Salsa/github reviewers? To be honest I don't have time to
> do a full review...Sorry.
no, I really mean this in the simplest possible way: review the 50 lines
On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 12:27 AM CEST, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> ...this is much more work than 50 lines. People are going to use this
[..]
> I don't have time to check the proposed compatibility matrix for
> correctness, I haven't checked it, so it's wrong to say that I reviewed
that makes sens
On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 12:10 AM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote:
[..]
> If this is an actual concern (on a second thought, I personally think
> it could be!), some more explicit warning could be added to the
[..]
> Perhaps the background section should be clearer on this.
> And a FAQ could be added.
I
On Sat Jul 27, 2024 at 5:18 PM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote:
[..]
> But debian/copyright does not have a stanza for that file
> (license-incompatibility.md)...
> If you really consider me as a co-author (despite the very little
> contribution I provided), then you should create a separate stanza in
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
