On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:32:18PM +1200, Dan Wallis wrote:
> 2011/6/24 Steve Langasek :
> > However, in reading the bug log my understanding is the upstream author's
> > position is that the GPL does not require dynamically-linked libraries to be
> > distributed under the same license terms. I do
2011/6/24 Steve Langasek :
> However, in reading the bug log my understanding is the upstream author's
> position is that the GPL does not require dynamically-linked libraries to be
> distributed under the same license terms. I don't believe this is an
> accurate interpretation of the GPL as writt
Thanks for raising this issue.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:47:56PM +1200, Dan Wallis wrote:
> First off, apologies if I'm out of place in sending you this, or if
> it's already been discussed here before. I did search the archives
> [0], but didn't see any mention of this particular suggestion.
>
Hello debian-legal
First off, apologies if I'm out of place in sending you this, or if
it's already been discussed here before. I did search the archives
[0], but didn't see any mention of this particular suggestion.
As I understand things, there's currently a stalemate between the
Debian policy,
4 matches
Mail list logo
