"Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking of doing an ITP of a program which is called mpich2.
> But I am not sure about the license which mpich2 is under with. [0]
>
> I'd be glad if you can help me. What do you think about the licence?
> Could be this softw
"Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
>
> I was thinking of doing an ITP of a program which is called mpich2.
> But I am not sure about the license which mpich2 is under with. [0]
>
> I'd be glad if you can help me. What do you think about the licence?
> Could
Dear Walter,
On 4/23/07, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have reproduced the license below. It is fine for Debian main.
Because the US government paid for the software, they get a separate
license, which just happens to be the same license as what everyone
else gets.
Thanks for an
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
> components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
> purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
> "component" of the "system" as is the media the system i
Hi *,
I was thinking of doing an ITP of a program which is called mpich2.
But I am not sure about the license which mpich2 is under with. [0]
I'd be glad if you can help me. What do you think about the licence?
Could be this software included in Debian?
I will appreciate any help and points of
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Frankly
> I'd be happy with any honest solution. Currently the promise made in the
> Social Contract is very stark, very bold, and also untrue. The DFSG are
> very stark and bold about this as well. Lots of "must", "never" and
> "
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:30:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
> > > discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
> > > modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being
> > > distributed in Debian against
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where a licence text accompanies a package it must, as a matter of
> law, be unchangeable.
This would hold even if the license on the GPL document permitted any
kind of modification. Those modifications would not change the license
terms under w
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue"):
> [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
> discussion: that
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:35:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden
> modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's
> pre-ramble (sic :-).
The grant of permissions is awkwardly given in the GPL FAQ:
htt
10 matches
Mail list logo
