On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution
License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says
otherwise. An
R P Herrold wrote:
Anyway - as long as the opennms guys have it, it doesn't matter.
Thre is plenty of trolling and people offering casual legal opinions at
24x7 in debian-legal for many years, and presently in fedora-adv for the
last couple days.
That still leaves the question unanswered
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 15:19 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>> On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
>
> >> Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution
> >> Licens
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution
License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says
otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution
License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says
otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that's what you
have ...
Che
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 17:19 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
I hope now that java is GPL that it is packaged/bundled to eliminate
this nonsense
The versions are using and adjunct components people want are
not GPLd
downer - thanks
On the other hand, redistribution is permi
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 17:19 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Craig White wrote:
>
> > I hope now that java is GPL that it is packaged/bundled to eliminate
> > this nonsense
>
> The versions are using and adjunct components people want are
> not GPLd
downer - thanks
Craig
_
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Craig White wrote:
I hope now that java is GPL that it is packaged/bundled to eliminate
this nonsense
The versions are using and adjunct components people want are
not GPLd
-- Russ Herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 15:21 -0600, Dan Carl wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Craig White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:15 PM
> Subject: [CentOS] Installing java on CentOS 5
>
>
> > strugging with thi
- Original Message -
From: "Craig White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: [CentOS] Installing java on CentOS 5
> strugging with things here...
>
> tried tracking the info on the Wiki (which apparently is now
strugging with things here...
tried tracking the info on the Wiki (which apparently is now in need of
a maintainer)...
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/JavaOnCentOS
My primary interest is using Xalan/Saxon/xslt/xsl-fo docbook generation.
I was thinking that all I really need is jre but downloaded b
11 matches
Mail list logo
