Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:19:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>> On 01/25/2013 10:41, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>> >> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Alternatively, if we can not
Hi,
Am 25.01.13 15:07, schrieb Charles Plessy:
There are also moin, netcdf-java, vlc, or wxmaxima, which either have an
inaccurate copyright file or contain files licensed under CC-BY-(SA-)2.5
(and pinta with by-nc-nd-2.5).
Note that I have not tried to be exhaustive in my search.
I have to ap
Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:19:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> On 01/25/2013 10:41, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> >> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Alternatively, if we can not find a significant difference
On 01/25/2013 10:41, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
Alternatively, if we can not find a significant difference of freedom
between
CC BY 2.5, and CC BY 2.0, how about accepting C
Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
>
> >>> When I encounter a work under CC BY 2.0, I have a hard time explaining
> >>> Upstream
> >>> why it is strictly necessary to upgrade it to 2.5 or more for their work
> >>> to be
On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
>>> When I encounter a work under CC BY 2.0, I have a hard time explaining
>>> Upstream
>>> why it is strictly necessary to upgrade it to 2.5 or more for their work to
>>> be
>>> distributed in Debian. What are the crucial changes that made CC BY 2.5
6 matches
Mail list logo