Just a heads-up.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/
There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL
v.3.
(They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.)
And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.)
You know where to leave your c
Hi,
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is. Plus, it's got some other
wording -- is it OK? Do any of you have any tips on what I might say
to the author
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:43, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to write:
> On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write:
> > "Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >ib yte.se...
> >
> > > What about the
Actualy, I'm not sure if indirect linking of GPL with "original BSD" license is
a violation as well.
Summary for debian-legal:
- zabbix (GPL) links with libsnmp (revised BSD)
- libsnmp links with libssl (original BSD)
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:32:04AM +0200, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
4 matches
Mail list logo