Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
12 matches
Mail list logo
