.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User^^-^^[17]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.-.
=-- /v\ ----=
Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User^^-^^[17]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- /v\ ----=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User^^-^^[17]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 à 09:49 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit
> > Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-) Well -- I
> > postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
> This is your choice, but most people here agreed that you don't nee
e I should
suggest to release documentation under?
P.S. Please CC me - I am not on the list.
--
.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav
the information!
--
.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User^^-^^[17
e to list all copyright holders + licenses per each piece of
software distributed within a package? or it is more of "should" than
"must" (which would be in strong disagreement with my previous state of
mind)?
2. Is wacom-tools violating the debian policy?
Thanks in advance
--
version LIBSVM-2.5 are under
GPL and copyrighted by lush authors?
Thanks in advance for the clarifications
--
Yaroslav Halchenko
Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Rutgers-Newark
Student Ph.D. @ CS Dept. NJIT
Office: (973) 353-5440x263 | FWD: 82823 | Fax: (973) 353-1171
101 Warren Str
istributed/used under
MIT license and are distributed solely under GPL?
Thank you in advance for clarifications
[1] http://pkg-exppsy.alioth.debian.org/pymvpa/
--
Yaroslav Halchenko
Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Rutgers-Newark
Student Ph.D. @ CS Dept. NJIT
Office: (973) 353-5440x2
? search for exceptions from GPLed
project authors (release it under LGPL for use in a specific project
etc)
Thanks in advance!
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00005.html
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Dear Legal People,
> I am one of the developers of PyMVP
are to use GPLed library
(for such scenarios there is LGPL), am I right?
--
.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\
p in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
where published, 2010, URL:
http://
Any comments are still welcomed ;-)
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
signatu
some data
files ;-)
Cheers
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
xplicitly describing possible uses and disclaiming any warranty?
but once again without any copyright statement.
Thanks in advance for your feedback,
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.co
1] http://www.xnat.org
[2] http://www.xnat.org/about/license.html
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, the file is not non-free despite its license
> statement ?
> Have a nice day,
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
-
cy?
Thank you in advance for clarifications,
--
=--=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
forced. If the standard suite of rights granted under
applicable copyright law and Database Rights in the relevant
jurisdiction includes additional rights not granted under this License,
these additional rights are granted in this License in order to meet the
terms of this License.
--
=
Hi NALs and ALs,
While working on a next package I ran into the GLF library code, which was once
released under following license
| GLF Library
| Version 1.0 (Release)
|
| Author: Roman Podobedov
| Email: ro...@ut.ee
| WEB: www.ut.ee/~romka
| Date: 17 August 2000
|
| Copyright (C) 2000,
Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me.
I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with
PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary:
If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible
license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optio
NB moving this to debian-legal with hope for better closure before
making more noise on -project
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I don't think so:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:q33o33.
Dear IANALs,
I am in a dialog about a license for a logo I once envisioned and then
some proper designed helped to design but because naive me didn't
disclose upfront the terms of the logo release -- got problematic.
Now at least we agreed that logo could be released under CC BY SA
(share-alike)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > "share alike" (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it
> > would not be available for close-source derivatives?
> The important question is, is the code or documentation legally a
> derivative work of the logo, or have they just been
Dear Debian IANALs,
Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free and compatible for
reuse/integration within projects under more permissive (MIT/BSD) or copyleft
licenses such as GPL. (do not want to burden/prime you with my analysis).
// This software is published under the terms of K
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have
> > been
> > //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the
> &
26 matches
Mail list logo
