[I already replied privately before I realized this was also posted to
the mailing list, so I'll just repeat my main point.]
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, I don't think a vague worry about RMS going loopy should outweigh the
> concrete, immediate, and demonstrable disadvantag
On 8 Jul 1999, Rob Tillotson wrote:
>
> (Just in case anyone wonders, one of my packages -- both upstream and
> Debian -- falls into category (1) above, specifically because I
> thought that it was likely that RMS would someday decide to sabotage
> the LGPL. I may be stuck with using it, but I'm
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does somebody feel the need to clarificate this, so that it explicitly
> says whether it refers to the old LGPL, the new one, or both of
> them?
Yes, please. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making
/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL the new ve
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:10:46PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
> LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
> called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
> w
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
> LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
> called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
> would consider that co
Hi *,
To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
would consider that copyright files saying "you will find the Library GNU
Pu
6 matches
Mail list logo
