Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the final license is:
> GPL, with an explicit exception allowing linking with any version of
> Qt without having to redistribute sources of Qt. (that is the license
> of psi package)
That seems fine. For DFSG purposes we don't need the explicit
Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > and that this kind of license is already used by other debian
> > > packages
> > Which packages? If that is true, bugs should be filed and packages
> > moved to non-free, preferr
Ok, i contacted the author again and he agreed to change his license
to something in agreement with his thoughts (which were: GPL, and also
permitted to link with Qt commercial WITHOUT restrictions !)
So the final license is:
GPL, with an explicit exception allowing linking with any version of
Qt
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > and that this kind of license is already used by other debian
> > packages
>
> Which packages? If that is true, bugs should be filed and packages
> moved to non-free, preferrably before sarge releases if at all
> possible.
li
Scripsit Pierre Chifflier
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include
>^
> > > Linux, so the license for the Debian will be GPL as well.
> > > If I made it not clear,
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Here is his answer:
>
> > =
> > This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include
^
> > Linux, so the license for the Debi
Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here is his answer:
> =
> This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include
> Linux, so the license for the Debian will be GPL as well.
> If I made it not clear, please let me know what I need to change in the
> license and
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:40:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It looks like he's really confused. The interesting case is where
> somebody downloads the Debian version of eSvn, then compiles it to run
> on Windows and distributes it that way.
>
> The GPL lets that happen. Is he really
It looks like he's really confused. The interesting case is where
somebody downloads the Debian version of eSvn, then compiles it to run
on Windows and distributes it that way.
The GPL lets that happen. Is he really OK with that?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:51:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sven Luther:
>
> >> I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to
> >> prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to
> >> make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably
This is a damn confusing license.
eSvn is available under two different licenses:
If eSvn is linked against the GPLed version of Qt
eSvn is released under the terms of GPL also.
Source code is not distributed linked. This grants no rights to the
source code.
If eSvn is linked against a n
* Sven Luther:
>> I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to
>> prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to
>> make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably okay.
>
> Well, the only way giving this licencing would be the absense o
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:32:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sven Luther:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:16:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Sven Luther:
> >>
> >> > Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
> >> > ignorable for us, right ?
> >>
* Sven Luther:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:16:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Sven Luther:
>>
>> > Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
>> > ignorable for us, right ?
>>
>> Only you if you interpret "eSvn License for Unix platforms" as a mere
>> plac
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:16:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sven Luther:
>
> > Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
> > ignorable for us, right ?
>
> Only you if you interpret "eSvn License for Unix platforms" as a mere
> placeholder (like "Licensing
* Sven Luther:
> Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
> ignorable for us, right ?
Only you if you interpret "eSvn License for Unix platforms" as a mere
placeholder (like "Licensing Option 2"). It's not clear if Debian is
a Unix platform.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:40:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> | eSvn License for Unix platforms:
> |
> | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> | the Free Software Foundation; either versi
| eSvn License for Unix platforms:
|
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
| it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
| the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
| (at your option) any later version. This prog
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:59:57PM +0200, Pierre Chifflier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently evaluating if eSvn (http://esvn.umputun.com/) can be
> package for debian.
>
> I wanted to know if the license is acceptable for 'main' (see
> attachement for complete file).
>
> In short:
>
> eSvn is avai
Hi,
I'm currently evaluating if eSvn (http://esvn.umputun.com/) can be
package for debian.
I wanted to know if the license is acceptable for 'main' (see
attachement for complete file).
In short:
eSvn is available under two different licenses:
If eSvn is linked against the GPLed version of Qt
e
20 matches
Mail list logo
