Am 06.01.2012 05:14, schrieb Ben Finney:
Kay Hayenkayha...@gmx.de writes:
I want everybody to receive under GPLv3 and then to contribute back by
default under GPLv3 and Apache license 2.0, or optionally under GPLv3
only.
At whose option?
The contributor option of course. If the
Hi all,
I was told about this thread and as I am copyright lawyer from Slovakia
(doing also within Creative Commons Slovakia), here is the background
you are looking for.
Yes, there is such problem in Slovakia, and it used to be in Czech
republic also (it changed in 2009 I guess). Its not really
Hi All,
It discusses the problems of CC and GPL licensing in Slovakia. Please
note that overall problem is not only about written form of license
(also signed email are written form - thus its not the same as paper
form), but more about the rules that govern formation of the contract.
I
Kay Hayen, 2012-01-06 11:27+0100:
I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it
with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor
agreement.
I would normally agree with such stance.
But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka under GPLv3 for
Hello Tanguy,
thanks for your response, you wrote:
I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it
with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor
agreement.
I would normally agree with such stance.
But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka
Hi Ben,
How should the new debian/copyright file look like?
That depends on what license grants there are in the work.
I will withhold comment on the license terms until you say what licenses
actually apply to what part of the work.
I found the license grant in the README.torque file.
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:15:26 -0500 Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Dominique!
I need some opinions about torque's license change.
Earlier versions of torque (=2.4) are shipped under the original PBS
License (e.g. torque-2.4.16/PBS_License.txt).
But now there is a license change
7 matches
Mail list logo
