On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:41:53AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > +GNU General Public License; either
> > +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is
> ^^^
> as a mi
Le 24/01/2012 05:41, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> It seems we've consensus on the license choice \o/
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:57:59PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
[…]
>> +GNU General Public License; either
>> +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
> can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
> under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
> object such
On Lu, 23 ian 12, 16:17:11, David Prévot wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, I've been sloppy and missed the other stuff. I should know better
not to do such stuff after a long work day.
Great work!
Thanks,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailm
Hi,
Note: the last version of the patch, including Francesco's remarks, is
in the BTS [1], and the result is available online [2].
1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=238245#258
2: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en
Le 23/01/2012 15:12, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
On Sb, 21 ian 12, 11:08:55, David Prévot wrote:
>
> I take it as a remark, not as an objection, and thus propose the
> attached patch if we agree on the dual licensing (@@date@@ will of
> course be replaced once agreed on the license choice and its wording).
> You can have a look at the built page
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
> MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
> What do you think?
I am happy for all my contributions I have done for the Debian website
(which admittedly have not been a lot recent
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:57:59 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
> Le 21/01/2012 12:28, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
>
> > I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license:
> […]
> > Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I wo
Le 21/01/2012 12:28, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
> I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license:
[…]
> Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I would not talk
> about any "latest version",
Thank you Francesco for
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
[...]
> Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> >>> If this is what you mean, then it should be no
Hi,
First of all, thanks Stefano to step in this long standing issue.
Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>> If this is what you mean, then it should be no
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > However, I think you should clarify what you mean by "dual-licensing".
> >
> > "Dual-licensing" is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
> > being offered a
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> However, I think you should clarify what you mean by "dual-licensing".
>
> "Dual-licensing" is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
> being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one,
> according to his/h
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:09:21 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
> > dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two
> > licenses and as a consequen
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-01-17 23:11:48 CET]:
> [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
> MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
Shouldn't that be GPL-2+ (or later option)? With MIT it isn't
explicitly needed, but still ... Ah, later in the text you wrote that
you mean the or lat
On Mi, 18 ian 12, 13:09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
> > dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two
> > licenses and as a consequence the w
Hi!
Am 17.01.2012 23:11, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
> can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
> under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
> object such a choice?
W
On Ma, 17 ian 12, 23:11:48, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
> MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
...
> What do you think?
Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be
dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of t
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
Hi everybody,
as you might have noticed the webmasters have recently restarted [1]
the discussion on how to fix this and its "colleague" bug report,
#388141.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cg
19 matches
Mail list logo
