[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-08-10 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- (In reply to Dave Olsthoorn from comment #4) > Maybe the confusion is because of this: > https://metacpan.org/changes/distribution/DBIx-Simple#L26 > > It seems the versions after 1.32 are not

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 --- Comment #4 from Dave Olsthoorn --- Maybe the confusion is because of this: https://metacpan.org/changes/distribution/DBIx-Simple#L26 It seems the versions after 1.32 are not released into the public domain anymore, but released under

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 --- Comment #2 from Dave Olsthoorn --- Okay, but how does this work qualify as "Public Domain"? There is a license text that mentions any OSI approved license is valid, not that it was released to the public domain:

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC|

[Bug 1609221] License 'public domain' is not valid

2018-07-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609221 Dave Olsthoorn changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) Referenced Bugs: