On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:52:10PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
> >> into "FSF-APPROVED"?
>
> > Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
>
> I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly req
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
>> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
>> into "FSF-APPROVED"?
> Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE to
be present.
The GLEP would also require a NON-MUST-H
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >
> > I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> > it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> > GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GP
On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.
++
Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big "This is free and open source software"
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are
> all licenses that can be mixed together. I d
