On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:23:05PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> excuse me, i meant part 4 of the license. part 3 is fine.
>From section 4 of the DFSG:
The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software.
Here's part 4 of the Sphin
i was going by the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i
wonder why the debian definition is different.
--
(jacob kuntz)[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED],underworld}.net
(megabite systems) "think free speech, not free beer." (gnu foundataion)
doh.
i'd like to withdraw my foolish post from earlier this afternoon. i need to
read more slowly.
i wonder if anyone is still willing to sponsor me after that goof.
--
(jacob kuntz)[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED],underworld}.net
(megabite systems) "think free speec
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i was going by the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i
> wonder why the debian definition is different.
the dfsg and the ossd are nearly exactly the same. In fact, upon perusing
the OSSD I came across the following:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i was going by the Open Source Definition
> (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i wonder why the debian definition is
> different.
Because when the open-source definition was originally being defined
some changes were introduced so it would
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > i was going by the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i
> > wonder why the debian definition is different.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:51:38PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> the dfsg and the ossd are nearly exactly the sa
6 matches
Mail list logo
