An Email has been received for faxing.
Details:
Email Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time Received: 6/30/2007 6:36:59 PM
Your email was not sent to (or from) a valid email address within our system.
(Must be in either the TO: or CC: fields)
This request has failed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Dear "Ellis Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Your message with subject has unfortunately been rejected by our SPAM
filter. If you believe this to be a legitimate correspondance, please resend
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Regards
Customer Care
Web Hosting UK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
> But, AFAIUI, the purpose of this informational sentence is to comply
> with the GNU GPL v2, which states, in Section 1:
>
> | give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> | along with the Program.
>
> and then includes (by reference to Section 1) this same restriction in
>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote:
[...]
> In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were
> worded like this:
>
> This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On
> Debian systems, the latest GPL version is in
> /usr/share/commo
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
>
> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to
> the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licenses.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:21:25AM +0200, Sa
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Santiago Vila:
>
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> > +
* Santiago Vila:
> + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguit
7 matches
Mail list logo
