On 2014-09-19 23:45+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> [...]Incidentally, ExternalProject.cmake does not
> contain the full license, but has a comment saying that if the file
> is distributed outside cmake then the full license should be pasted
> into the file. We don't do this and we probably should, or a
On 2014-09-19 20:32+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:03:05PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
>> @Andrew:
>> The next paragraph is all my opinion, but I don't feel strongly about
>> it. Therefore, if you decide to deal with this license another way,
>> that is fine with me.
>>
>> The
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> >
> >I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> >machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> >attached a copy and I think this ident
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:31:21AM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> >
> > I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> > machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> > attached a copy and I think this id
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:03:05PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-09-18 21:18+0100 Phil Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Hi Alan and Andrew
>
> > The shapelib files from Ordnance Survey are my doing. You are right
> Alan that they are under licence rather than in the public domain,
> however, I used th
On 2014-09-18 21:18+0100 Phil Rosenberg wrote:
> Hi Alan and Andrew
> The shapelib files from Ordnance Survey are my doing. You are right
Alan that they are under licence rather than in the public domain,
however, I used them specifically because they were available under an
open type licence.
I
Alan W. Irwin"
Sent: 18/09/2014 17:31
To: "Andrew Ross"
Cc: "PLplot development list"
Subject: Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057
On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
>
On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
> parts of files) apart from the addit
On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
> parts of files) apart from the addit
I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
parts of files) apart from the additional libraries shipped in lib
(which I also need to
On 2014-09-17 23:57+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> My reading of the bug report was different to yours. There are a
> number of files (e.g. examples which contain licenses different to
> the LGPL. The debian/copyright file is supposed to contain mention
> of ALL licenses which are applied t
Alan,
My reading of the bug report was different to yours. There are a
number of files (e.g. examples which contain licenses different to
the LGPL. The debian/copyright file is supposed to contain mention
of ALL licenses which are applied to any part of the software. Some
(but not all) of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
