Quoting Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages
license proliferation.
GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made
public. We don't want that.
The GPL does not require this.
I re-read GPL today (after
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 22:59:46 +0100, Milan Babuskov escribía:
The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages
license proliferation.
GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public.
No, it does not. It only requires that, if
El viernes, 24 de marzo de 2006 a las 10:18:14 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Licenses that require that modifications are published are routinely
rejected by Debian.
More properly, Works distributed under licenses that...
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To
Hi, Milan,
[Yet another cross-post to debian-legal, whose comments are needed at
the lower part of this mail. Thanks]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes. If possible, I intend to convince everyone to dual license FR under
GPL and someting else.
How? If
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 15:55:55 +0200, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is.
2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated
to publish them
3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is.
2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated
to publish them
3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version
available, he must make the modifications available to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Milan Babuskov wrote:
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is.
2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated
to publish them
3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version
7 matches
Mail list logo
