Ce vendredi au Mas !
WOMEN'S DAY
Le Mas Puyricard vous invite à la soirée "Women's Day" un vendredi placé sous
le signe des femmes & de la fête!
Après le cocktail direction le buffet d'entrées, qui permettra de créer des
liens, de deviner des affinités. (le plat & le dessert vous seront ser
Ben Finney writes:
> One large problem: I can't see that the above conditions grant freedom
> to redistribute in modified or unmodified form. That fails the DFSG, by
> my reading.
Another large problem: the stated conditions do not grant freedom for
the recipient to grant license to anyone else
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:54:07 -0500
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> That should read, of course, defendants.
>
> On 2016-03-09 10:53 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> > So in a cause of action against Debian for
> > infringement, who are the plaintiffs?
>
Depends. But we're concerned about people who redistri
That should read, of course, defendants.
On 2016-03-09 10:53 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
So in a cause of action against Debian for
infringement, who are the plaintiffs?
So in a cause of action against Debian for
infringement, who are the plaintiffs?
The website describes it as an association
of individuals, but is rather evasive about
the actors other than the "author's" listed
on the site. The debian.org site is hosted
in the U.S., so that provides convenient
j
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Doesn't this entail getting agreement among all
> the Linux distributors as well, not just Debian?
No, this is something to be fixed upstream, and then it will of course
apply to all downstreams. *If* it is really a problem, which I doubt.
> On 2
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Doesn't this entail getting agreement among all
> the Linux distributors as well, not just Debian?
Linux distributors hold no copyright in libfcgi-perl, only Open
Market, Inc. does, so they are the ones who need to agree, not Debian
or any
Doesn't this entail getting agreement among all
the Linux distributors as well, not just Debian?
--t
On 2016-03-09 4:42 AM, Graham Knop wrote:
Based on my reading, the libfcgi-perl debian package has a licensing
issue. The base package includes a file LICENSE.TERMS, which shows a
license rough
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Graham Knop wrote:
> This would appear to me to be "explicitly disclaimed" as not following
> the LICENSE.TERMS license. And also certainly not following the DFSG.
>
> While I believe this conflict was an error in the initial release of
> this code (nearly 20 years
Based on my reading, the libfcgi-perl debian package has a licensing
issue. The base package includes a file LICENSE.TERMS, which shows a
license roughly equivalent to the MIT license. It does however
include the following phrase:
The following terms apply to all files associated with the Softwa
10 matches
Mail list logo
