Dear all,
the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not
list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1].
Also the con
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
> >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
> >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do no
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the
> > > ftpmasters.
> >
&g
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 22:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and
> > as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause
> >
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote:
>
> > Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:]
> >
> > > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG
> >
> > More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote
> [...]
5 matches
Mail list logo