On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
I don't agree.
The license under analysis
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:57:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
Not entirely, but it looks like it
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
I don't agree.
The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference).
I do *not* think
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:14:30 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Gregory Colpart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.
I
Gregory Colpart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.
I read debian-legal archives to have information about
5 matches
Mail list logo
