o.
To me, this seems like an attempt to combine GPLv1 with an additional
condition that distribution is allowed only provided distributor does
not charge for the software itself.
So it seems to me it's against DFSG#1, and thus non-free.
Is this correct?
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsia
tly into the binary.
|
| Please also note that this problem now affects ekg (1), as the gtk UI code
| was recently added to it.
|
|[1].
http://dev.psi-im.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Psi&path=%2Ftrunk%2FCOPYING
|[2]. http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
|[3]. http://
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:21:30AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Would adding a more generic OpenSSL exception be enough? Or should they use a
> different license? Would LGPL be sufficient?
Is there any hope someone will help me with this one?
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL
sion. It's not built with HTML support because
that part of the code is non-free.
Is this sufficient? Shouldn't the whole package be moved to non-free?
And if it was in non-free, would it be OK to build it with HTML support?
regards,
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
n years?
How are other people dealing with this?
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I'd like to package [1] a program which is GPLv2+ licensed, but as far as I
can tell, this fact is only stated in a couple [2] of [3] lines of its
setup.py build script. This is a bit of an obscure way to state the license
for my taste. However before I bother the upstream maintainer about
czw., 20 paź 2022 o 01:53 Michael Lustfield
napisał(a):
> (forgive the phone formatting)
>
> This project is clearly stating that the intended license is GPLv2+. It
> might be specified in just the one file, but that file is also clearly
> intended to represent the project.
>
> It's fine as-is, b
7 matches
Mail list logo
