Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP

2006-04-01 Thread Damyan Ivanov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Triplett wrote: > Damyan Ivanov wrote: > >>=== The problematic? clause === >>Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or >>organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated >>documentation fi

Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP

2006-04-01 Thread Damyan Ivanov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:48:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: >>Please bear in mind >>that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by >>itself. > > I see, but imagine which permissions someone would get, if he/she wa

Re: Format of the copyright file

2006-04-01 Thread Frank Küster
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:31:11PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm struggling with the policy requirement that the copyright and >> licensing information must be in one file debian/copyright, including >> the complete license text except for

Re: Mozilla relicensing complete

2006-04-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:37:34 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has > > now completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and > > MPL: > > ...

Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP

2006-04-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:00:25 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: > I beleive this is not a problem, since the > FlameRobin package would satisfy both licensing (original Expath and > this modified thingy - the IBPP license) and the Social contract. I > mention SC, because of this text: "We promise that the

Re: Mozilla relicensing complete

2006-04-01 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:39:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:37:34 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing proce

Re: MPL license

2006-04-01 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Marco d'Itri wrote: >> You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent >> decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. >The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12 >after initial distribution or 6 months af

Re: Mozilla relicensing complete

2006-04-01 Thread Gervase Markham
Francesco Poli wrote: > I think that this is good news anyway. > Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue! You are welcome :-) Perhaps now I can get back to hacking :-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA

Re: Mozilla relicensing complete

2006-04-01 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now > completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL: > http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html And there was much rejoicing. Ku

Re: MPL license

2006-04-01 Thread Andrew Saunders
On 4/1/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Snapshot.debian.net does not help because Debian made legally > responsible for ensuring the code remains available by the MPL, and as > we know all to well snapshot.d.n is not invincible.] True enough. However, once snapshot.debian.net