Yes. I confim LPLv3+MPL 1.1 are applicable for previous + future work.
Regards
Luc
2011/11/19 Norbert Thiebaud
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Joop Kiefte wrote:
> > Sorry for being a nitpicker, but you mean LGPL/MPL ?
>
> actually LGPLv3+/MPL 1.1 , please.
>
> Norbert
>
--
Luc Cas
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Joop Kiefte wrote:
> Sorry for being a nitpicker, but you mean LGPL/MPL ?
actually LGPLv3+/MPL 1.1 , please.
Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/l
Sorry for being a nitpicker, but you mean LGPL/MPL ?
Em sábado, 19 de novembro de 2011, Luc Castermans escreveu:
> Hello Philipp,
>
> Your inputs made sense, thanks for reviewing. Herewith the updates. As
> before GPL/MPL is valid.
>
> Let me find another target...
>
> Luc
>
> 2011/11/19 Philipp
Hello Philipp,
Your inputs made sense, thanks for reviewing. Herewith the updates. As
before GPL/MPL is valid.
Let me find another target...
Luc
2011/11/19 Philipp Weissenbacher
> Hoi Luc, all,
>
> Not sure if that really matters, but I think that
> // Klammerung, da in diesem Handler das Wi
Hoi Luc, all,
Not sure if that really matters, but I think that
// Klammerung, da in diesem Handler das Window zerstoert werden darf
// Parentheses, as in this handler the window could be destroyed
"could" should be "can".
On line 925 (in the patch):
I would translate it like this:
If the Overlap
