-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
License and copyright are one and the same.
GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open
source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:41:08AM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
Maybe taking derived code (e.g. including new code), one could write only
the license of aggregate work (thus one later license),
I think so. I agree it could be better to list them explicitly, but
upstream doesn't want that.
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
License and copyright are one and the same.
GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open
source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright,
the license is meaningless. Without license,
Robert Millan wrote:
And so on. * Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere is simply false,
Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting
with The new file seems to be asserting... above).
Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem, I
will
Hi Jo,
Nice to see your newly found interest in C++ packages (though, not
completely unexpected) :-)
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
Please note that this project in its current form contains swathes of
major copyright violations and cannot be uploaded to Debian -
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 21:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi Jo,
Nice to see your newly found interest in C++ packages (though, not
completely unexpected) :-)
Nothing wrong with C++ in moderation. My last ITP was a C++ browser
plugin.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Jo Shields
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:30:30PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
If there's a problem, we'll get it sorted out, but I need more specific
info on your findings; the example you pasted shows a file with nor
copyright statement neither license information (from tomboy) and one
with both of
7 matches
Mail list logo
