>> I'm from Debian GNU/Linux. On our legal mailing list, we've been having
>> concerns about the license that you put most of your software under.
>> Essentially, we think that when you say
>>
>> the name of Vinay Sajip
>> not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution
>> of the
Eriberto Mota writes ("Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+"):
> Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative
> work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian
> distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and
> debian.tar.xz. Is this? Bu
Hi,
After some discussion on #debian-devel, there seemed to be consensus that the
LGPL doesn't conflict with the openssl license.
Personally, I think this is not the case (the conflicting point 6 in the GPL
is verbatim copied in LGPL as point 10), but as long as debian-legal is ok
with the consen
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
> one of Vinay's software that is used (as copies) is dictconfig. He
> keeps it here [1], should he relicense this in his repo, and we tell
> upstreams who copy to get the new relicensed version ?
Personally I think all the relevant ups
On 29.08.14 07:10:10, Riley Baird wrote:
> On 29/08/14 07:05, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
> >
> >> Afaict, the only Vinay Sajip-licensed code that Debian uses is the
> >> Python logging module. Before I send a response to Vinay, can anyone
> >> confirm
5 matches
Mail list logo
