Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) for Debian

2005-10-25 Thread Eric Lavarde - Debian
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]

Re: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) for Debian

2005-10-25 Thread George Danchev
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]

Re: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) for Debian

2005-10-25 Thread George Danchev
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

[Fwd: ITP: newmat -- manipulate matrices using standard operations]

2005-10-25 Thread David Moreno Garza
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

Re: RIPEMD crytographic hash function

2005-10-25 Thread Brian M. Carlson
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