Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:42:14 +0200 Rox 64 wrote: > So what are the supposed weakness of both versions of the GPL? There's extended literature about the weaknesses of the GNU GPL v2 (patent pacts, tivoization, ...), so I won't elaborate on them here. The FSF web site is the primary source of pro-u

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

So what are the supposed weakness of both versions of the GPL?

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:44:55 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > > > In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the > > Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility > > with either the GP