Hi Lionel,
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:49 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> OK, then. To implement that "hopefully over time, bit by bit we can
> incrementally re-write it as a clean MPL/LGPLv3+ thingit", we need to
> clearly establish that all future contributions to these files are
> LGPLv2.1+ / M
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59:58PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:05 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly
>> getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1
>> *OR* obeying the SISSL. I cho
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> I feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and
> I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice
> prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it.
>
hey, don't get me wrong... I
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 05:33:48AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane
>>> wrote:
postgresql-sdbc
>>> few qu
Hi Lionel,
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:05 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly
> getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1
> *OR* obeying the SISSL. I chose LGPLv2.1.
Seems reasonable on the face of it
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
>>> postgresql-sdbc
>
>> few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on substance...
>> I only
