Hi,
I wanted to know if the CDDL [1] is an acceptable license, before I
possibly try to package jaxb from [2] for Debian. I didn't find this
license under [3].
Thanks, Eric
PS: I'm *not* on the list.
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
[2] https://jaxb.dev.java.net/
[3]
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 16:39, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to know if the CDDL [1] is an acceptable license, before I
possibly try to package jaxb from [2] for Debian. I didn't find this
license under [3].
Thanks, Eric
PS: I'm *not* on the list.
[1]
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 18:56, Dalibor Topic wrote:
--cut--
A possible resolution seems to be a per-case basis, but again it is too
far from feasible to predict how a certain jurisdiction will
change/evolve thru the time. I personally dislike such possible
hard-to-predict legal
Forwarding from a wnpp bug.
debian-legal is the best place for discussing this.
--
David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.damog.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: C671257D
Cuando yo nací, la tierra tembló.
---BeginMessage---
Hi Philippe, (and hi everybody
On Sunday 23 October 2005 08:38, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
[CC'ed debian-legal, they can probably give a more detailed and
informed analysis of the proposed license]
Done, please forware appropriate information as needed.
[snip license analysis]
RIPEMD-160 is
5 matches
Mail list logo