[Bug 1289] Any reason "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" are not valid licenses as per Appendix IV?

2015-06-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1289 Mark Gisi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark.g...@windriver.com --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug 1289] Any reason "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" are not valid licenses as per Appendix IV?

2015-06-16 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1289 --- Comment #2 from Joe Andrieu 2015-06-16 19:56:58 UTC --- Mark, Thanks for the clarification. In the case of Sections 3.12 and 3.13, it is easy to agree with your argument that NONE and ASSERTION are a state of analysis. However, for Sect

[Bug 1289] Any reason "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" are not valid licenses as per Appendix IV?

2015-12-22 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1289 Kate Stewart changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stew...@linux.com --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1289] Any reason "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" are not valid licenses as per Appendix IV?

2016-01-05 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1289 Bill Schineller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bschineller@blackducksoftwa