On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:57:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely, but it
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> > >
> > > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
> >
> > I don't agree.
> > The licens
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> >
> > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
>
> I don't agree.
> The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference).
> I do *no
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:14:30 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
>
> [2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
> I think your ITP License line is incorr
Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.
> I read debian-legal archives to have information about
5 matches
Mail list logo