> Thomas,
>
> I discussed this matter with our CEO and he asked me to resolve the
> compliancy. I iwll update you shortly.
>
> ~ Adam
Hi Adam,
Ok, that sounds good, as I would really hate to push for a
package that has some controversy on the freeness of it's license.
I am very happy to see tha
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:55 +0800
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not
> > how that licence is or is not described on a website.
>
> But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of
> its content:
>
> Open Source
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
> "Thomas Goirand" wrote:
>
>>> It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
>>> that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
>>> If there is commentary that can be read counter
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC)
"Thomas Goirand" wrote:
> > It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> > that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> > If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not
Le Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:20:51AM -, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> > Thomas,
> >
> > It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> > that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> > If there is commentary that can be read counter to that,
> Thomas,
>
> It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
> that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
> If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a
> good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoin
* brian m. carlson:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
>> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
>> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
On Oct 07, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word "must".
Which would not make it non-free either, as it is not part of the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
> Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been
> discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I
> just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion
> about if on
brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
>> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
>> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, a
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
> anybody not contributing
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 03:58:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009, Marcus Better wrote:
> > This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
> >
> > Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> >
> > There is no need to repeat that story here, let me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Goirand skrev:
>> Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> Hell, I missed it.
Oh well :-)
> This doesn't appear at all on the license.txt. Do you
> think I could still package it for the non-free archive?
I don
Marcus Better wrote:
> This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
>
> Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
> http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
>
> Here they make claims that d
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009, Marcus Better wrote:
> This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
>
> Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
>
> There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
> http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
>
> Here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
Here they make c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Goirand
* Package name: libjs-extjs
Version : 3.0.0
Upstream Author : Ext JS LLC
* URL : http://www.extjs.com/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Javascript, PHP
Description : a cross-browser JavaScript l
17 matches
Mail list logo
