Holger Levsen layer-acht.org> writes:
> On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > ISTR (some of) -legal@ saying not DFSG-compliant,
>
> some people on -legal will always disagree, what counts more is the (rough)
> consenus...
Sure, but I thought we had an explicit consensus on d
Luca Capello (28/02/2009):
> This does not match everything, since some packages can list the full
> license name only, e.g. Hunchentoot: […]
Never said it would. The idea was just to point to an obvious example
showing ftpmasters' acceptance of such a package.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Descri
Hi there!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:08:35 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Norbert Preining (27/02/2009):
>> Does anyone know anything about that license?
>
> Looking at the pool:
> | k...@gluck:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ grep -i cc-by-sa
> */debfiles/copyright
This does not match e
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 16:02 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Anyway, versions 2.0 and 2.5 allow relicensing to 3.0
>
> By anyone?
§4b :
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Anyway, versions 2.0 and 2.5 allow relicensing to 3.0
By anyone?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 15:46 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> wow, I'm surprised to see 2.0 and 2.5 licences there. AFAIU (and I've read
> those licences...) and AFAIK, cc-by-sa 3.0 is fine for main, previous
> versions not. So I guess some bugs are in order to be filed...
Anyway, versio
Hi,
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> ISTR (some of) -legal@ saying not DFSG-compliant,
some people on -legal will always disagree, what counts more is the (rough)
consenus...
> ftpmasters saying yes,
and ftpmaster, obviously :)
> Looking at the pool:
wow, I'm surprise
Norbert Preining (27/02/2009):
> it is quite hard to get definitive answer on the above license.
> Interestingly the Debian wiki says that
> In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered
> to be compatible to the DFSG.
> and there are many discussions about the CC-BY
Hi everyone,
it is quite hard to get definitive answer on the above license.
Interestingly the Debian wiki says that
In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered
to be compatible to the DFSG.
and there are many discussions about the CC-BY-SA but no definitive
an
9 matches
Mail list logo
