Hi,
Since a few versions, the picviz [1] license has changed for the
following:
---8<
Describes the terms under which Picviz is distributed. A copy of the GPL
is appended after the specific Picviz license terms.
*
*** Speci
Ok, i contacted the author again and he agreed to change his license
to something in agreement with his thoughts (which were: GPL, and also
permitted to link with Qt commercial WITHOUT restrictions !)
So the final license is:
GPL, with an explicit exception allowing linking with any version of
Qt
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > and that this kind of license is already used by other debian
> > packages
>
> Which packages? If that is true, bugs should be filed and packages
> moved to non-free, preferrably before sarge releases if at all
> possible.
li
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Here is his answer:
>
> > =
> > This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include
^
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:51:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sven Luther:
>
> >> I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to
> >> prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to
> >> make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably
Hi,
I'm currently evaluating if eSvn (http://esvn.umputun.com/) can be
package for debian.
I wanted to know if the license is acceptable for 'main' (see
attachement for complete file).
In short:
eSvn is available under two different licenses:
If eSvn is linked against the GPLed version of Qt
e
6 matches
Mail list logo
