Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Probably OK in non-free given that Debian is a non-profit
>> organisation.
>
> Wait, wait: IIUC, we are talking about a work which is licensed
> under the terms of the GNU LGPL v2 or later as a whole, but includes
> code licensed under a non-profit-only license.
>
> The t
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:05:40 + John Halton wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 1:38 PM, Vincent Fourmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems to me that
> > the copyright notices conflict, and effectively render the file not
> > distributable, but I am not quite sure; if this file is effectively a
> > d
On Jan 7, 2008 1:38 PM, Vincent Fourmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that
> the copyright notices conflict, and effectively render the file not
> distributable, but I am not quite sure; if this file is effectively a
> derived work from the work copyrighted by the Universtity of Nort
[please CC me and the bug for replies, thanks]
Hello,
The package vegastrike (in main) contains two files whose copyright
header is reproduced integrally in this message. It seems to me that
the copyright notices conflict, and effectively render the file not
distributable, but I am not quite
4 matches
Mail list logo
